Executive Summary 1

DraftDraft ProgramProgram EnvironmentalEnvironmental ImpactImpact ReportReport

NorthNorth CoastCoast SystemSystem RepairRepair andand ReplacementReplacement ProjectProject

PreparedPrepared forfor PreparedPrepared byby

CityCity ofof SantaSanta CruzCruz WaterWater DepartmentDepartment 809809 CenterCenter Street,Street, RoomRoom 102102 SantaSanta Cruz,Cruz, CACA 9506095060 590590 YgnacioYgnacio ValleyValley Rd-SuiteRd-Suite 200200 WalnutWalnut Creek,Creek, CACA 9459694596

AprilApril 20052005 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report

North Coast System Repair and Replacement Project

Prepared for

City of Santa Cruz Water Department 809 Center Street, Room 102 Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Prepared by

590 Ygnacio Valley Rd-Suite 200 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

April 2005 Executive Summary

Executive Summary

This programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (California Public Resources Code [Cal. Pub. Res. Code] §§ 21000-21178.1), implementing guidelines (California Code of Regulations [CCR] title 14, §§ 15000-15387 [1999]), and City of Santa Cruz requirements. The City of Santa Cruz is the lead agency under CEQA for the proposed Project. The institutional arrangements for funding of the project have not yet been determined but would be resolved prior to project initiation.

Introduction

This PEIR evaluates the potential impacts to the environment that could result from the proposed Santa Cruz North Coast Pipeline System (NCS) Repair Project.

The proposed Project includes replacement and repair of the 16-mile raw water pipeline and the repair of water diversion facilities that divert water to various pipelines in the NCS. The proposed Project would be implemented over a 15- to 20- year period. With a few exceptions, the proposed Project would not require substantial changes in operations and maintenance (O&M) from current O&M procedures.

The NCS repair work would include replacement of the supply pipelines and minor changes or upgrades to the diversion structures. The pipeline replacement work would include replacement of the pipelines in their current alignments or construction in new alternative alignments. Due to the size of the NCS and funding limitations, work on each of the five pipeline reaches would likely occur independently of each other and could include a mix of existing and new alignments. Alternatives under consideration include pipeline routing that may require a change from the present gravity-flow system to a pumped/pressurized system for the Laguna or Majors reaches. These pumps would not result in additional system capacity, but rather would be used to lift water from the diversions up and over the steep ridge top areas. For the diversion structures, the repair work would be limited to modifications of the existing structures only (e.g., improved sediment and operations management, improved fish screen design, etc.).

Purpose and Scope of the Programmatic EIR

This environmental impact report (EIR) is a Programmatic EIR (PEIR), prepared under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168. In recognition of this, the alternatives and components of the NCS have been developed at a conceptual level, and environmental review also at a conceptual level. The PEIR is intended to take advantage of this opportunity to consider cumulative impacts, facilitate the analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and allow the city to consider broad policy alternatives and mitigation measures at an early stage in the development of the NCS.

CEQA Guidelines define a PEIR as a “PEIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways” (CEQA Guidelines § 15168).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 1 Executive Summary

Because this document is a PEIR, it addresses the potential impacts and mitigation measures for the overall system repair project. As individual components are subsequently proposed for implementation as projects within the scope of the program, the City of Santa Cruz will then determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. Depending on the scope of the project and its anticipated environmental effects, it will be determined whether an addendum to this PEIR, a subsequent EIR, supplemental EIR, mitigated negative declaration, or negative declaration is appropriate—based on the specifics of the proposed project actions. The environmental review process will comply with the CEQA requirements for public notice and review of all further environmental documentation for system repair projects, thus assuring that all interested parties have the opportunity to review and comment on the implementation of components.

Project Background

The Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) has operated and maintained the 16-mile long NCS since the 1880s. The North Coast Diversion water rights were acquired by the City prior to 1914 and enables the city to divert flow year round. The system relies entirely on rainfall runoff and emergent groundwater to furnish approximately 30 percent of SCWD’s overall water production (IWP 2003).

The diversion structures on its four coastal streams (Liddell, Reggiardo, Laguna and Majors creeks) range in age from approximately 80 years to over 120 years. Over half of the approximately 16 miles of conveyance pipeline is over 40 years old. Over the past several years, the City has been forced to make emergency repairs on many sections of the pipeline.

In July 1990, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the final draft of the Water Master Plan that evaluated water demand, supply, quality, treatment, and distribution through 2005. In addition to the Master Plan, a state-mandated Urban Water Management Plan sets forth City policies relating to conservation and efficient use of water supplies (City of Santa Cruz 1994).

In 2000, the City published an Alternative Water Supply Study (Carollo 2000) that evaluated water demand, supply, quality, treatment, and distribution system alternatives intended to alleviate potentially significant water shortages under multiple dry-year conditions. The NCS was identified as a key resource in weathering drought conditions. In addition, the system is prized for its high-quality and low-cost water.

In 2002, the City completed an Initial Study (IS) that focused on proposed modifications to the current operation and maintenance of the exiting pipeline through implementation of the NCS. The purpose of the Initial Study (IS) was to determine whether there were significant environmental impacts associated with construction activities for the repair project and future operation of the NCS.

ES.1 System Limitations The diversion and pipeline facilities have historically provided adequate service for the City, but have been increasingly prone to leakage and failure in recent years and increased routine maintenance.

Limitations of the existing pipeline system include:

• Age/Condition – The age of the pipelines has resulted in deterioration of pipe materials, resulting in increased frequency of leaks and need of emergency repairs.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 2 Executive Summary

• Access Constraints – Limited access to many of the pipeline reaches has resulted in increased maintenance requirements, potential damage to the environment, and in some cases, more costly and complicated repairs.

Limitations of the existing diversion structures include:

• Sediment Accumulation – The original design of the diversion structures does not provide sufficient sediment flushing/transport capabilities, resulting in a buildup of rock, sand, and debris.

• Lack of Remote Operating and Monitoring Capability – The original design and current configuration of the diversion structures do not provide remote operation and monitoring capability at Reggiardo, Laguna, and Majors creek diversions.

• Structural Integrity – Despite their age, the main structural elements of the diversion structures are in generally good condition, except for minimal damage at the end wall abutments. Modifications are necessary for the structures to remain viable into the future.

• Improper Sizing of Inlet Screens – Majors and Laguna creeks support native populations of rainbow trout. The intake screens at Majors and Laguna creeks are too large to prevent entrainment of juvenile fish and other aquatic organisms.

• Fish Passage – The Majors, Laguna and Reggiardo diversions prevent upstream passage of resident fish. Downstream movement of fish may occur through the slide gate or over the crest of the dam of Laguna and Majors diversions when the water is spilling over it. Downstream flow through the slide gate and from most areas over the dam crest falls into shallow pools, potentially causing stress or injury to fish migrating downstream.

Public Involvement Process

Public involvement is a key part of the PEIR process. Methods to involve the public in the process have included or will include the following:

• Issuing a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 9, 2004

• Publishing notices of public meetings in newspapers with a wide circulation and encouraging written comments

• Creating and maintaining a mailing list to disseminate information about the decision-making process

• Providing a 45-day comment period upon the release of the draft PEIR

ES.2 Public Review Upon completion of the draft PEIR, the City of Santa Cruz will file a notice of completion with the State Office of Planning and Research, and a 45-day public comment period will begin. The City will also mail notices to agencies and individuals on the mailing list and to the Office of the Santa Cruz County Clerk. The public review period will provide an opportunity for the public to review the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 3 Executive Summary document and offer comments. The city will respond to all comments on the draft PEIR in a final PEIR.

The public can send written comments on the draft PEIR to the following address:

City of Santa Cruz Attn: Ms. Linette Almond 809 Center Street, Room 102 Santa Cruz, CA 95060 Phone: (831) 420-5200 Fax: (831) 420-5201 Email: [email protected] [clearly marked “North Coast EIR Comments” in subject line]

A final PEIR, which will discuss the comments received on the draft PEIR, will be published and made available for review. If the final PEIR is found to have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, it will be certified as complete by the Santa Cruz City Council. If no appeal of the project is submitted to the city council within 10 days of approval of the PEIR, the Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz will sign the resolution certifying the PEIR; then a notice of determination will be filed with the California Office of Planning and Research.

Project Location and Setting

The proposed Project consists of numerous facilities located throughout the North Coast Watersheds. Most of the existing and proposed pipeline route passes through lands that have historically been used for ranching, mining, and agriculture, and more recently, support rural residential use. A relatively small portion of the project is located within the City of Santa Cruz and passes through urban residential and commercial areas before reaching the Coast Pump Station at the San Lorenzo River. SCWD’s service area includes areas within the city limits, the University of California, Santa Cruz (UC Santa Cruz), unincorporated areas such as Pasatiempo and Carbonera to the north, the Live Oak area to the east, and several domestic and agricultural areas along State Route 1 (hereinafter called “Highway 1”) to the west of the city (Figure 2-1).

The watersheds of the Santa Cruz County coast originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which are located relatively close to the Pacific Ocean. As such, the streams of this area typically drain small watersheds and, because of their relatively short length, are referred to as “short-run streams” (Env. Sci. Assoc., 2001). The NCS crosses numerous watersheds, including from west to east, Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Reggiardo Creek, Laguna Creek, Scaromi Creek, Majors Creek, Gordola Creek, Baldwin Creek, Lombardi Gulch, Old Dairy Gulch, Wilder Creek, Moore Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, and Pogonip Creek.

Additionally, the NCS passes through lands held by both public and private entities. The largest landowners are the Trust for Public Land (TPL), which owns and manages the Coast Dairies Property (approximately 7,000 acres), and California Department of Parks and Recreation (“California State Parks”), which owns and manages the 6,000-acre Wilder Ranch State Park. The existing pipeline alignment also passes through several private properties in the upper and lower portions of the Laguna Creek watershed, as well as near and within the City of Santa Cruz.

All proposed Project facilities are within the County of Santa Cruz. Precise descriptions and locations of all existing Project facilities are provided in Section 2.6.1.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 4 Executive Summary

Project Description (Chapter 2)

The proposed Project evaluates options for replacing the aging gravity-fed pipeline, as well as rehabilitating the water diversion structures to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable operation of the NCS. Where possible, the proposed Project will also be used to develop alignments that improve right-of-way (ROW) access, so that leaks may be detected more quickly and access for repairs improved; thus, minimizing environmental impacts and improving water conservation efforts.

It is anticipated that this project would be completed over a 15- to 20- year period, depending on the availability of funds for permitting and construction, and the time required to obtain necessary permits and easements. Repair work on the NCS would include replacement of the supply pipelines and repair of the diversion structures. The pipeline replacement work would include replacement of the pipelines in their current alignments or the construction of new alternative alignments, designed to avoid sensitive habitats. Due to the size of the NCS and funding limitations, work on each of the five pipeline reaches would likely occur independent of each other and could include a mix of existing and new alignments. It is also possible that the pipeline re-routing may require a change from the present gravity-flow system to a pumped system for the Laguna or Majors reaches.

Modifications to the old diversion structures, located in the upper watersheds of these creeks, would require the installation of a cofferdam and temporary bypass system, dewatering, earthwork, reinforced concrete demolition and construction, metal work fabrication and installation, stone protection, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical services, including a pneumatically operated spillway gate. This work would enable the diversion structures to facilitate passage of suspended sediment and bed load downstream in a more natural manner during peak storm flows, minimizing the need for manual clearing of these materials.

ES.3 Project Objectives The overall goal of the proposed Project is to confirm the most viable repair alternatives for the NCS. Concepts for the proposed Project may include the modification of existing pipeline and diversion facilities, new facilities, or a combination of both. Modified existing facilities would include minor enhancements to diversion structures (e.g., improvement of flow management and sediment transport) and replacement of pipe in existing or new alignments.

The primary objectives of the repair project include:

• Improving System Reliability and Efficiency – Replacement of old existing pipelines and supporting infrastructure to minimize the potential for a system shutdown due to pipe leakage and failure would meet this objective. The City’s Integrated Water Plan calls for NCS leakage to be reduced from 15 percent to 1 percent.

• Maintaining System Capacity –The proposed Project would provide new infrastructure to enable continued supply for the future. Repair upgrades of the NCS would be designed to maintain the existing system capacity in order to meet this objective.

• Improving System Operation –System operations efficiency and consistency could be improved with the repair of several system elements: the addition of remote operation and monitoring capability at the diversion structures; modification of the diversion structures to improve flow management and sediment transport past the diversion impoundments; and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 5 Executive Summary

pipeline re-routing or alternative alignments to avoid inaccessible terrain and sensitive habitats.

• Minimizing Environmental Impact – The potential short- and long-term impacts from the proposed Project can be minimized by limiting construction and operation in sensitive habitat areas wherever possible. Several aspects of the diversion repair and pipeline realignment activities proposed will provide substantial reductions in environmental impacts associated with long-term operation and maintenance of the NCS.

Diversion Structures

Objectives of the repair evaluation for diversion structures are to determine:

• Whether Laguna Creek and Majors Creek diversions are structurally sound and the reliability of the diversions.

• Whether modifications could be made to improve the efficiency and reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with the City’s operation of the diversion structures.

Historically, the City has needed to dredge the Laguna and Reggiardo diversion impoundments periodically to remove rocks, gravel, and large woody debris that accumulate behind the diversion structure. Additionally, the City has operated the Majors Creek diversion to flush sand from the upper watershed past the diversion structure.

A conceptual design has been developed for the Laguna and Majors diversions, as part of the proposed Project, to improve the passage of sediment, gravel, cobble, and large woody debris at both facilities. The design also includes the automation of diversion operations so that access to the structures during wet weather is not a limiting factor in proper facility operation. The conceptual design also includes improved intake screens to protect fish and other aquatic organisms.

Existing Facilities

Much of the proposed Project would take place in existing locations and incorporate similar operation and maintenance procedures. Therefore, present pipeline and diversion facilities are included in this PEIR. Their current condition and operation represent baseline conditions.

There are four water sources that supply water to the NCS:

• Liddell Spring located on a tributary to the East Branch of Liddell Creek

• Laguna Creek Diversion

• Reggiardo Creek Diversion

• Majors Creek Diversion

These water sources are passively diverted into the various pipeline reaches that comprise the NCS. The pipeline reaches include Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Reggiardo, Laguna, and Majors. These pipelines carry the water down to the main NCP Reach that runs along Highway 1 to the CPS on River Street (Figure 2-1). The raw water is then pumped from the CPS across the San Lorenzo River

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 6 Executive Summary to the Graham Hill Road Water Treatment Plant. Existing pipeline and diversion facilities are briefly described below.

Pipeline Reaches

• Liddell Reach (Reach 1) – The Liddell Creek pipeline is approximately 10,000 feet long and traverses woodland, riparian forest, wetland, and grassland habitat. This reach includes both buried and unburied pipe and crosses four streams (elevated and buried). The pipeline varies in elevation from approximately 600 feet mean sea level (msl) to 330 feet msl upon reaching the Laguna pipeline.

• Laguna/Liddell Reach (Reach 2) – The Laguna/Liddell Creek(s) pipeline is approximately 5,900 feet long and traverses riparian, meadow, and grassland habitat. The pipeline originates at an elevation of approximately 330 feet msl and drops to an elevation of 30 feet msl. The pipeline includes three elevated stream crossings.

• Laguna Reach (Reach 3) – The Laguna Creek pipeline is approximately 13,000 feet long and traverses predominantly woodland/riparian habitat. The pipeline originates at an elevation of approximately 640 feet msl and intersects the Liddell pipeline at Y Creek (an elevation of approximately 330 feet msl). The pipeline includes three elevated stream crossings.

• Majors Creek Reach (Reach 4) – The Majors Creek pipeline is approximately 11,000 feet long and traverses woodland, riparian, and grassland habitat. The pipeline ranges in elevation from approximately 400 feet msl to approximately 95 feet msl. The pipeline follows the contour of the steep eastern slope of the canyon and eventually enters a 500-foot-long boring through the end of the ridge. The pipeline includes one elevated stream crossing at Gordola Creek at Highway 1.

• North Coast Pipeline [NCP] Reach (Reach 5) – The NCP is approximately 44,250 feet long. The pipeline starts at an approximate elevation of 30 feet msl and ends at a similar elevation at the CPS adjacent to the San Lorenzo River. The pipeline traverses through predominantly grassland, agricultural, and disturbed areas with some riparian habitat existing at the stream crossings. The pipeline crosses 13 streams, both perennial and intermittent streams.

Diversion Structures

• Liddell Spring – Liddell Spring is located on a tributary to the East Branch of Liddell Creek approximately 2.5 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. The spring is enclosed in a concrete diversion box that diverts water into a 12-inch steel pipe. The spring produces approximately 1 million gallons per day.

• Reggiardo Diversion – The diversion structure is located on Reggiardo Creek. The headwaters of Reggiardo Creek are created by a spring, where water flows above the surface for a short distance and extends below ground. Water in Reggiardo Creek collects behind a small dam, creating a small pond in the channel. Water from the pond is delivered, via an 8- inch riveted steel pipeline (approximately 800 feet long) into the diversion pond on Laguna Creek (ENTRIX 1997). The pipeline is buried for most of its length, but is exposed in a number of locations immediately downstream of the diversion. North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 7 Executive Summary

• Laguna Diversion – The Laguna Diversion structure is located on Laguna Creek approximately 0.1-mile upstream of the confluence with Reggiardo Creek and approximately 4.0 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. The diversion structure spans the entire width of Laguna Creek and is approximately 12 feet high and creates an impoundment that passively diverts water through an intake on the left bank (facing downstream).

• Majors Creek Diversion – The Majors Creek Diversion is located on Majors Creek approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. The facility spans the width of Majors Creek and is approximately 12 feet high and creates a small impoundment from which water is passively diverted through the intake on the left bank (facing downstream). There is no hardwired electricity at this facility.

ES.4 Project Alternatives The proposed repair program is intended to evaluate options for the replacement and repair of the aging pipeline and repair of the diversion structures to ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz. No additional pipeline capacity would result from the proposed Project and no new pipeline facilities would be constructed. As a result, project alternatives associated with each of the five pipeline reaches (with the exception of Majors) will include the following:

• No Project Alternative

• Existing Alignment Alternative

• Alternate Alignment Alternative(s)

The Majors Reach will include a second “alternate” alignment. The three diversion structures will include both “No Project” and “Repair” alternatives. The various pipeline reach alternatives are further described below.

Pipeline Reaches

• Lid [LID] Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment would replace the existing pipeline within the existing ROW.

• LID Alternative 3 – Alternative Alignment addresses a short segment of the pipeline from the spring box diversion to the point where the pipeline enters the canyon bottom. From this point pipeline distance (p.d. [1,522 feet]) to Y Creek, the alternative is identical to the existing Liddell alignment. This alternative would require additional new easement to implement.

• LID/LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment would run from Y Creek through the lower Laguna watershed to the beginning of the NCP Reach at Highway 1. The proposed Project would replace the existing pipeline within the existing ROW with only minor deviations.

• LID/LAG Alternative 3 – Alternative Alignment would run from the western side of Y Creek along the access road to the beginning of the NCP Reach.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 8 Executive Summary

• Reggiardo Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment would replace the existing pipeline along the existing alignment with no deviations from the existing ROW.

• Laguna [LAG] Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment would replace the existing pipeline along the existing alignment with no significant deviations from the existing ROW.

• LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment would provide a pipeline route that would run outside of the Laguna Creek canyon and reduce the number of stream crossings required. The alternative includes the installation of a pump station at the Laguna Diversion site to pump the water up to the ridgeline north of Laguna Creek, along the ridgeline and down to Y Creek.

• Majors [MAJ] Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment would replace the pipeline within the existing ROW from the Majors Creek Diversion intake to the confluence with the NCP Reach near Highway 1.

• MAJ Alternative 3 - Ridge Top Alternative would reduce the extent of pipeline construction on steep forested slopes, eliminate use of the cliff boring, and provide for greater ease of construction and maintenance access. This alternative would include the construction of a pump station at the Majors Creek Diversion that would lift the water up to the ridgeline on the southern side of the canyon. The pipeline would be above ground from the pump station to the top of the canyon ridgeline, then would transition to below ground and be routed along the eastern ridgeline along the transition between the canyon forest and marine coastal prairie plain habitat, rejoining the existing ROW on the first tier marine terrace south of the cliff boring.

• MAJ Alternative 2 - Road Alternative would reduce the extent of pipeline construction on the steep forested slopes, eliminate use of the cliff boring, and provide for greater ease of operation and maintenance. This alternative would also include construction of a new pump station at the Majors Creek Diversion. The pump station would provide operating pressure to lift the water from the diversion to the top of the ridgeline via a pipeline route that follows the existing access road.

• NCP Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment would be replaced in most areas within the existing ROW with minor deviations. The NCP Reach runs from the end of the Laguna/Liddell Reach to the CPS.

• NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment would follow the existing alignment in most areas, but would eliminate replacement of the pipeline through the residential neighborhood northeast of High Street; the steeply forested drop down to and through Harvey West Park; passage through the industrial/commercial area north of Harvey West Park; the creek crossing at Pogonip Creek; and the railroad crossing at Golf Club Drive. Instead, this segment would follow nearby City streets and would likely be combined with other similar, previously planned projects in the area.

ES.5 Diversion Facilities Under the proposed Project, the diversion structures on Laguna and Majors creeks would be modified so the existing 12-inch slide gate valves at the dam face would be replaced by a 5-foot high by 9-foot wide pneumatically operated spillway gate. This structural change would lead to modification of the diversion impoundment, because sediment would be allowed to accumulate to the invert of the spillway gate and the creek flow would be routed to the diversion intake. The gate elevation would be North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 9 Executive Summary raised or lowered automatically to regulate the diversion and bypass of streamflow. By reconfiguring the impoundment, the bed load and suspended sediment load will pass the diversion during the peak flow and will have a greater potential to be carried to the ocean in a natural manner. When the turbidity level drops to acceptable levels, the intake would be opened to allow diversion of flow, and the pneumatic gate would be raised as needed to maintain the surface water elevation needed for diversion. The opening and closing of the intake slide gate and pneumatic gate would be automated based on readings from a water surface elevation gage and turbidity meter located in the diversion intake, and a flow meter upstream of the diversion structure.

While repair work to the Reggiardo diversion structure is not part of this project, the activity may be evaluated in the future under project-specific CEQA analysis or in an addendum to the Final PEIR. The diversion is sufficiently small that installation of a pneumatic gate system is not warranted; however, if modifications were deemed necessary in the future, environmental mitigation, construction timing, and methods of work would be consistent with those described below for the Majors and Laguna diversions.

ES.6 Project Construction

Trenching

In most instances, new pipeline would be placed in trenches, with trench depth and width varying depending on the diameter of the pipe installed and ground conditions. Under the proposed Project, trench depths would range between 50 inches (for an 8-inch diameter pipe) and 60 inches (for a 16- inch diameter pipe). Trench widths would range between 20 inches (for an 8-inch diameter pipe) and 28 inches (for 16-inch diameter pipe). The trenching operation would be carried out with a chain trencher, a tracked or wheeled excavator, or backhoe.

Directional Drilling

Directional drilling would be one of the pipeline installation methods available to be used in areas along the pipeline route where trenching would need to be avoided (i.e., across wetlands, flowing watercourses, and driveways). Horizontal directional drilling is a method of installing a new pipe through a shallow, vertical hole. Directional drills can operate over distances ranging from 100 to 2,500 feet, depending on size.

Pipeline Suspension or Attachment

At stream crossings, with deeply incised banks and/or inadequate banks for directional drilling or trenching, the pipeline may be attached to an existing bridge or overpass. In addition, a cantilever- type structure could be constructed to support the pipe above stream channels.

Construction Schedule

The first pipeline segment will be constructed along High Street in 2005. This construction will occur in conjunction with the planned Bay Street Reservoir Transmission Main Project. By combining this first pipeline segment with the Bay Street work, the need for subsequent construction in the area would be eliminated.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 10 Executive Summary

Construction on the first major pipeline reach would likely begin within the next three to four years, subject to funding and easement attainment. An assessment of the various pipeline reaches will be made at that time to determine which pipeline reach is the first to be repaired.

The period of construction and repair of each of the pipeline reaches will vary. In general, the construction period depends on whether the pipe is buried underground or installed above ground and the actual length of the pipeline reach. Table ES-1 shows estimated construction time frames for each of the five pipeline reaches, as well as an estimate of the amount of pipeline above and below ground.

TABLE ES-1 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION DURATION Total Pipeline Pipeline Below Pipeline Above Total Percent Below Percent Above Pipeline Reach Length Ground (Linear Ground Construction Ground* Ground* (Linear Ft.) Ft.)* (Linear Ft.)* Days* LID 10,000 6,000 60 4,000 40 25 LID/LAG 5,900 5,310 90 590 10 28 LAG 13,000 5,850 45 7,150 55 47 MAJ 11,000 2,750 25 8,250 75 35 NCP 42,250 39,825 90 4,425 10 201 *All numbers approximate and subject to change. Construction Access

Access for construction is important for implementation of this project, due to the various types of terrain and habitats within the Project area. Most access would occur using ½-ton and ¾-ton trucks. For construction access on residential roads, access to private property would be maintained at all times and safety personnel would help guide local residents and emergency personnel. Construction activities would be restricted to easements obtained for the construction and operation of the pipeline.

Heavy Equipment and Machinery

Anticipated equipment for most phases of this project would consist of tracked excavators, soil compactors, and ½-ton and ¾-ton trucks. At pump station locations, additional equipment could include a mobile crane and concrete delivery trucks. Diesel fuel is required for machinery and heavy equipment; refueling such equipment would be limited to designated areas so as not to expose sensitive habitats to the possibility of a fuel spill.

Vehicle Trips

Most vehicle trips would be associated with the transport of pipe and associated materials (fittings, associated materials, etc.) and equipment to a project site. Vehicle trips would also be required for road modifications (gravel import), likely using vehicles 10 cy (cubic yards) or smaller in size, depending on access conditions. Table ES-2 shows estimated vehicle trips for each of the pipeline reach alternatives.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 11 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-2 ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS Estimated Vehicle Trips Estimated Vehicle Trips Estimated Total Pipeline Alternative for Pipe for Materials Vehicle Trips LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment 85-100 90-100 175-200 LID/LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment 50-60 55-60 105-120 LID/LAG Alternate 3 – Alternate Alignment 45-50 45-50 90-100 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment 105-125 110-125 215-250 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment 75-90 80-90 155-180 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment 100-115 90-100 190-215 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment 80-90 80-90 160-180 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment 70-80 70-80 140-160 NCP Alternatives 2 [Existing Alignment] and 350 to 380 125-140 475-520 NCP Alternative 3 [Alternate Alignment]

Traffic Coordination

Traffic coordination with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), State Parks, Trust for Public Land, County Public Works, local farming operations, rural residents, and landfill and sand quarry operations would occur on an as needed basis. Any partial street closures and traffic control would be coordinated with the City Public Works department and local residents that may be affected would be informed of potential traffic controls. The City would also ensure adequate emergency access at all times and would notify local emergency service providers of any road closures at least 48-hours in advance.

Workforce

Due to the scale and duration of the project, the workforce is expected to vary, depending on the reach under construction and the particular phase of work. The workforce for a typical pipeline replacement project consists of traffic control, public safety workers, pipe fitters, general laborers, carpenters, and light-duty equipment operators. The number of workers on-site at any given time would vary depending on the type of work being conducted, but generally would average between 15 to 20 workers.

Construction Staging Areas

Primary staging areas would likely be established at several locations on flat land along the western side of Highway 1, with smaller staging areas located adjacent to access roads in the various pipeline reach and diversion areas. General locations of potential staging areas are included on all figures in this PEIR. Most of these areas are privately owned. No staging areas would occur on the undeveloped marine terraces.

Existing Pipeline O&M Activities

O&M on the NCS consists of three activities: vegetation maintenance, monitoring, and emergency response and repair. Under the proposed project, O&M activities are not expected to change significantly. Current O&M activities are described below.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 12 Executive Summary

• Vegetation Maintenance – Where possible, the city maintains an 8-foot-wide access above the pipeline ROW. This accessway is mowed periodically to provide easy access and facilitate visual inspections for leaks. Under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that vegetation would be controlled using a riding mower where feasible. Where slopes are too steep, or the ROW is physically too narrow to mow, vegetation would be thinned or controlled using hand tools. Because mowing may not be practical in shrub/scrub and forested areas, it is anticipated that the understory would be pruned with hand tools. Under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that vegetation control would be conducted annually in most areas and potentially twice per year in selected areas of rapid vegetation growth, as is done currently.

• Pipeline Monitoring – SCWD’s employees periodically monitor the pipeline system for leaks. Monitoring is conducted on foot or by vehicle where possible. This activity has the potential over time to compact soils, trample vegetation, and harm terrestrial wildlife. Under the proposed Project, this activity would not differ from existing monitoring activities.

• Emergency Response Activities and Repairs – The City’s past experience with substantial pipeline leaks and breaks has shown that environmental impacts are typically associated with both the forceful release of water onto erodible soil formations, steep slopes, riparian habitats, and the need for repair equipment to access potentially sensitive habitats. The repair portion of the proposed project would be used (where possible) to develop alignments that improve ROW access and visibility so that leaks may be more readily detected and access for repairs improved.

Existing Diversion O&M Activities

The diversion structures currently require five O&M activities: water diversion, flow and sediment management, intake screen maintenance, and equipment maintenance. Under the proposed project, these O&M activities are not expected to vary significantly. However, proposed changes to the diversion structures and intake screens would provide for more efficient operations.

Equipment and Pump Maintenance

Existing facilities at the North Coast Diversion are limited to the diversion intake slidegate and two pneumatically-operated bypass flow relief valves located at the diversion dam face and adjacent to the diversion intake. The valves are lubricated and checked periodically, and appropriate precautions are taken to prevent the lubricant from getting into the creek. Under the proposed project, frequent maintenance of the pumps (monthly) and gate machinery (two times per year) would be required. As under current conditions, appropriate precautions would be taken to prevent the introduction of lubricants and cleaning solvents from entering the environment.

Pipe Fabrication

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 13 Executive Summary

Steel pipe is the preferred material for use in seismic areas. The pipe wall thickness can be increased to endure high pipe pressures and can be placed in trenches without a great deal of deflection.

Access Agreements and Easements

Easements currently exist along the entire route of the existing pipeline; however, the size of the easement and access rights vary along the route. For construction of the pipeline in an alternative alignment, new easements or access agreements will be required. Access agreements will be needed for staging areas, even if construction is conducted within the existing alignment. Long-term agreements or easements would be necessary to provide ongoing access for maintenance of the pipeline and the ROW, pipeline repairs, and other activities.

Affected Environment (Chapters 3 through 15)

The affected environment section of each chapter describes the present physical conditions within the area of the proposed action. The area, or region of influence, is defined for each environmental issue based on the overall extent of physical resources that may be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed action and appropriate guidelines of regulatory agencies or common professional practice. This section of the PEIR describes the baseline conditions for each environmental resource against which the potential impacts of the proposed action are compared.

Environmental Analysis (Chapters 3 through 15)

The environmental impacts sections of each chapter describe the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Many of the impacts identified in this PEIR are directly related to the effects of pipeline construction. Conceptual mitigation measures are identified for those impacts determined to be significant. The purpose of this section is to provide the public, interested agencies, and decision- makers with a clear understanding of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project. Beneficial environmental consequences of the project are also identified and described. Table ES-3 summarizes the potentially significant environmental impacts for the project and identifies recommended mitigation measures. A brief overview of the environmental impact analysis is provided by resource below.

Aesthetics

Adverse aesthetic impacts would result from the construction/replacement of visible aboveground and partially buried facilities, such as pipelines, pump stations, and various vents and other ancillary facilities. Such impacts would be associated with the Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, and Majors reaches. O&M activities such as mowing the ROW on the marine terrace may also result in an adverse visual impact on the Laguna/Liddell and Majors reaches. The extent to which aesthetic impacts would occur is dependent upon the level of recreational development has occurred in the project area at the time of construction.

While pipeline facilities located in rural or open space areas can create substantial visual contrasts with their settings, no other projects are anticipated in the immediate area of the existing pipeline facilities. This fact combined with the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 6, impacts to aesthetics in most areas are anticipated to be less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 14 Executive Summary

Agricultural Resources

The proposed project could result in soil compaction and a loss of soil productivity in areas of sensitive farmland, associated mainly with the Majors and NCP reaches. While much of the proposed project would occur in predominantly rural, lightly populated residential areas, there would be no construction in areas of sensitive farmland resources, beyond those already affected by existing pipeline facilities. As a result, impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be minimal. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project in Chapter 4. Although no other potential projects on agricultural lands have been identified, if other projects implement similar mitigation measures, potential cumulative impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant.

Air Quality

Construction activities associated with the proposed project facilities could result in temporary, construction-period emissions of criteria air contaminants. Over the long-term, operation of proposed project facilities could result in the creation of omissions from occasional use of emergency back-up generators and fugitive dust from infrequent vehicle traffic on dirt roads. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)-approved mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less than significant for all emissions. All construction and operation activities within the project area would be required to comply with Federal and State air quality policies.

Biological Resources

Implementation of the proposed project could result in adverse impacts to biological resources located throughout the project area, with the possible exception of those areas constructed in the City streets. The nature and extent of the impacts would depend upon the alignments selected, the methods of construction (e.g., trenching, directional drilling, etc.), the extent to which sensitive habitats can be avoided, and the time at which the construction is conducted. The existing and alternative pipeline alignments pass through a broad range of habitat types including many stream crossings, riparian habitat, redwood and oak forest, and marine terrace coastal prairie plain. Instream construction at the Laguna and Majors diversions would also result in short-term habitat disturbances. The implementation of BMPs and the proposed mitigation measures are expected to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Impacts would likely include the temporary disturbance of special-status species (i.e., steelhead and California red-legged frogs), aquatic habitat at stream crossings and instream construction at the diversions, terrestrial wildlife habitat, and sensitive riparian habitat. Impacts to sensitive biological resources are regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and other agencies. Any potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from the proposed project or other foreseeable projects in the area would require consultation with the responsible agencies and implementation of approved mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures. Implementation of these measures would be required as a condition of project approval; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be expected.

It should also be noted that protection of threatened and endangered species associated with NCS O&M is being addressed through the implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for selected City activities. The HCP will identify the potential for take associated with selected activities North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 15 Executive Summary and will present mitigation measures to control take to acceptable and approved levels. Take associated with the NCS construction would be addressed through ESA at the time of the project- specific CEQA analysis.

Cultural Resources

The loss or degradation of individual cultural sites and resources could occur as a result of the proposed project, which would diminish the cumulative scientific and cultural value of such resources in the area. These impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level or avoided by mitigation measures identified in Chapter 10, Cultural Resources, along with any mitigation outlined during project-specific analysis.

The development of recreational resources on the Coast Dairies Property and Wilder Ranch State Park could also impact cultural resources in the future. However, it is anticipated that any such projects would be subject to similar mitigation measures for cultural resource protection. Therefore the proposed action would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources.

Geology, Minerals, Soils, and Paleontology

The entire NCS is susceptible to impacts from seismic activity. Although seismic activity can cause damage to substandard construction, new project designs can significantly reduce potential damage. Earthquake-resistant designs employed on new pipelines and supporting facilities minimize the impact to public safety from seismic events to a less than significant level.

Proposed project facilities and any other related projects could be constructed through geologic formations susceptible to slope failure and soil compaction, as well as, on sites with potential shrink and swell soils, or that feature soils with high erosion potential. Project-specific geotechnical investigations would be necessary as part of the design process to address these geologic issues and impacts. As such, all project facilities throughout the project area would be required to utilize standard engineering practices and meet design standards that would reduce the potential for project- specific and cumulative geological impacts to a less than significant level.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Construction of proposed project facilities could increase the potential for wildfires in the project area, depending on the time of year construction took place. This potential could be mitigated to a less than significant level through adoption of appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., development and implementation of Fire Prevention Programs or Emergency Response Programs for each project, as necessary). These programs would occur in consultation with local fire protection services.

Construction and operation and maintenance of the proposed project facilities and any foreseeable future related project facilities could result in the exposure of workers or the public to hazardous materials due to disturbance of contaminated sites along the NCP Reach, or the unintentional release or spill of hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of approved mitigation measures including, the thorough investigation of potential project sites prior to construction; use of proper personal protective equipment if contamination were encountered; proper use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials to prevent spills; and adequate emergency response procedures that would be implemented in the event of a release or spill.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 16 Executive Summary

Facilities associated with the proposed project (mainly pipelines and supporting facilities) or other infrastructure projects in the project area could be vulnerable to acts of vandalism or sabotage. For example, the sabotage of a pipeline could result in potentially significant adverse impacts to public safety and biological resources. The implementation of appropriate security-related mitigation measures, such as burying pipeline facilities where feasible, fencing, and secured access points, would reduce the potential significance of this impact to a less than significant level.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The proposed project could result in impacts to water quality (stream sedimentation), associated with instream construction at the diversions, and construction of the various pipeline reaches could result in increased erosion, mainly from trenching activities in canyon areas with steep banks and at stream crossings. Such erosion can be destructive to the immediate area and can adversely affect downstream habitats (spawning habitat, wetlands, etc). The implementation of applicable BMPs and mitigation measures identified in Chapter 8 Hydrology and Water Quality would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Recreational development in the project area in the future would be required to meet the same Federal, State, and local permit requirements as required for the proposed project. These requirements would include mitigation measures similar to those identified in Chapter 8 (Hydrology/Water Quality). As a result, the potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are considered to be less than significant.

Land Use and Planning

All of the proposed project alternatives would be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in or adjacent to the project area. Additionally, the project related activities identified in Chapter 2 appear to be activities that would be allowable and compatible with the existing, planned, and adjacent land uses. Consistency with the City/County General Plans and the Local Coastal Program would be required for all projects. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for specific project actions would occur on a case-by-case basis, reducing any potentially significant cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

Noise

Noise impacts associated with the proposed project would occur primarily during construction and would be short-term in nature. Impacts would be significant even with mitigation in those areas of construction in very close proximity to rural and urban residences. From a long-term operational and maintenance standpoint, noise from equipment or machinery operation would be mitigated to achieve the necessary noise limits established in City and County regulations for noise sensitive locations. Therefore, in most instances noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

Public Services and Utilities

Adverse impacts on public services and utilities would not be associated with the most of the proposed project alternatives. However, even with mitigation impacts on traffic and emergency response services at rural and urban residents in close proximity to the pipeline construction, impacts may not be reduced to a less than significant level. The proposed project would only affect public services and utilities during the construction phase and related impacts would be short-term in nature. North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 17 Executive Summary

Any future projects in the project area would be required to provide for adequate utility service prior to their approval. It would not be expected that these projects would require more utility service than could be provided through the usual planning procedures. Therefore, the cumulative impact to public services and utilities is expected to be less than significant.

Recreation

Repair or replacement of the NCS pipelines would occur on lands that are used for unauthorized recreation, are currently developed for public and private recreational access, or are slated for future public recreational development. Construction activities could adversely impact recreational use in a number of areas along the Highway 1 corridor, in Wilder Ranch State Park, City open spaces and parks, and on the Coast Dairies Property. The extent of these impacts will be dependent upon the timing of the construction and the extent of future recreational development in the project area. The mitigation measures identified in Chapter 5 Recreation are expected to reduce these impacts to a less than significant level.

Other reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area would likely be recreational development projects. These projects may also have a short-term impact on recreation. However, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, such as adequate communication of access disruption, and restoration of disturbed facilities, cumulative impacts to recreational resources would be less than significant.

Transportation/Traffic

Construction activities associated with the proposed project facilities would contribute to an overall increase in traffic volumes on existing access roadways in the project area. These impacts would be localized and temporary in duration. However, traffic impacts for selected pipeline alternatives (e.g., Laguna Ridge Top Alignment and the NCP Existing Alignment north of High Street) could be significant even with mitigation for residents in close proximity to the pipeline construction ROW.

The extent to which other potential projects could contribute to cumulative traffic impacts is not known. Following construction, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with traffic and transportation in the project area or with other foreseeable projects in the project area.

CEQA Considerations (Chapter 16)

ES.7 Significant Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources This chapter considers whether the proposed Project would result in permanent changes to the existing environment and would involve the consumption of energy derived from nonrenewable sources if the project was implemented. None of the proposed actions would result in a permanent change to the environment. The proposed construction activity will require the consumption of fossil fuels and fabrication materials (e.g., HDPE pipe) derived from petroleum hydrocarbons. These resource-consuming activities are short-term impacts, and would be associated with any form of repair or replacement of the existing NCS facilities.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 18 Executive Summary

ES.8 Growth-Inducing Impacts CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of growth-inducing impacts (i.e., foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment) of the proposed project. This discussion should include the characteristics of the proposed project that may encourage or facilitate future growth that, either individually or cumulatively, could significantly affect the environment. Because the project does not increase the capacity of the pipeline system the project is not expected to provide the city with additional water. Therefore it is unlikely to generate growth inducing impacts.

The project will be constructed by reach over 15- to 20- year period as funds and permitting become available. Therefore, the project is not expected to create demand for housing or services for the construction crews.

ES.9 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts are those impacts which by themselves are not significant but, when considered with impacts occurring from other projects in the vicinity would result in a total or cumulative impact. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects. While an EIR should discuss the "severity and likelihood of occurrence" of cumulative impacts, "the discussion need not provide as great detail" as the discussion of the proposed project's effects but "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness" (CEQA Guidelines Section 15130). In addition, reasonable mitigation measures should be discussed. However, CEQA acknowledges that "with some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis."

This section examines the program-level cumulative effects that may occur if overall repair of the North Coast System proceeds within the implementation timeframe described above (15- to 20- years), as allowed by existing land use designations and zoning; the Santa Cruz County General Plan, adopted HCPs; and other region-wide plans and regulations developed for the protection of water resources, air quality, etc.

Future development of recreation resources and public access to the Coast Dairies Property (to be managed by the Bureau of Land Management) and the west end of Wild Ranch State Park will likely result in impacts to some biological and aquatic resources in the project area. The extent of the impacts will be dependent upon the timing and extent of the creational development and the timing of the pipeline construction work. It is anticipated that these impacts can be reduced to less-than- significant levels through coordinated planning and implementation of appropriate mitigation measures.

The proposed Project is one component of the Integrated Water Plan that is expected to enable the City to reliably provide water to its service area by ensuring an adequate supply is available and that adequate infrastructure is in place to transport the raw water throughout system through 2030. Other components of the Integrated Water Plan that are dependent upon the successful completion of the NCS Repair Project include:

• The Integrated Water Plan, which assumes that the NCS will operate at full capacity with leakage and outage water losses reduced from the estimated 15 percent to 1 percent. The NCS provides 30 percent of the water required to meet current and future water demand. North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 19 Executive Summary

• The City of Santa Cruz Section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan that is in development is dependent upon the NCS to provide improvements in surface water diversion opportunities, and to minimize water leakage to offset environmental water demand.

The cumulative impacts of the proposed Project are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of standard mitigation measures and additional site specific measures that would be identified during subsequent site-specific CEQA review.

ES.10 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various potentially significant effects of a project were not discussed in detail in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15128). This PEIR contains an analysis of the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed project. No unavoidable potentially significant adverse program-level impacts were identified for the proposed project.

Alternatives (Chapter 17)

No feasible alternatives with selected variation (alternatives) to the proposed project were identified. Therefore, only the proposed project described in Chapter 1 and the “No Project” alternative are analyzed in this PEIR. The following discussion addresses the range of alternatives that were considered as possible alternatives to the proposed Project but did not meet the screening criteria and were eliminated from further consideration. The “No Project” alternative for each pipeline reach and diversion and its potential impacts are also presented in this section.

ES.11 Initial Alternative Screening Criteria Many of the existing project facilities were built around the turn of the century, when much of the land was cleared for cattle grazing and by clear-cut timber harvesting. Subsequently, many portions of the existing pipeline alignment are now surrounded by mature scrub and second growth forest tree, making replacement of the pipeline in those specific areas environmentally sensitive and costly.

The proposed NCS repair program is intended to evaluate options for the replacement of the aging pipeline and repair of the diversion structures to ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz. No additional pipeline capacity would result from the proposed project and no new pipeline facilities would be constructed. The proposed Project is in large part a long-term maintenance project rather than a new construction project. As a result, the initial alternative screening criteria were intended to identify alternative pipeline alignments that would minimize impacts to the environment, were constructable, and would provide long-term, efficient and reliable water conveyance to the city.

To be given detailed consideration in this PEIR, an alternative had to meet pre-established screening criteria. These criteria included the continued operation of a reliable and safe water supply; proximity to the City of Santa Cruz and existing infrastructure; minimization of environmental impacts; and availability of rights-of-ways for routine maintenance.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 20 Executive Summary

ES.12 North Coast Pipeline System Alternatives Screening Criteria Following the initial alternatives screening, the only remaining viable project and geographic alternative was a mix of potential pipeline alignments that were in close proximity to the existing pipeline and water diversions. These initial criteria included the following:

• Potential alternatives must meet the Project objectives of providing for reliable, safe, and efficient supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz

• Potential alternatives must utilize and be compatible with the City’s existing NCS water sources, water rights, and locations of diversions

• Because potential alternatives must seek to minimize or avoid impacts of the proposed project, alternatives must not have been determined, to be infeasible due to excessive environmental impacts

• Potential alternatives must not have been determined, as part of previous, similar investigations, to be infeasible due to functional inadequacies (e.g., low water yields) or prohibitively high costs

• Potential alternatives must not currently be under consideration or development, by the City or other agencies in the area, in order to satisfy deficiencies in the area’s water supply system that are beyond the scope of the proposed project

Within the proposed Project area, a number of potential alternate alignments exist. NCS alternatives were subsequently screened against the following criteria to determine whether they were viable for further evaluation in this EIR:

• Economic feasibility of the project depends on the project qualifying for outside funding assistance. At this time, repair of the various pipeline reaches is dependent on funding and obtaining the necessary permits and easements required for construction and maintenance. Potential sources for funding include the City of Santa Cruz, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), as well as potential future grants and bonds.

• Potential repair alternatives in the Project area must be configured to meet the following criteria:

− Located as near as possible to existing water supply sources.

− Located in a developable parcel currently owned by the City of Santa Cruz or, secondarily, other public agencies; privately owned sites should be considered only if a facility were required in an area where no City or other agency-owned sites were available.

− Located in areas where potential environmental concerns could be avoided or minimized, or located in an area of environmental concern only when required for a facility to fulfill project requirements. For example, the NCP Reach is the main supply line for the four other reaches and has its own special set of siting criteria that requires it to be accessible in certain locations.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 21 Executive Summary

While the screening process resulted in the present project configuration alternatives, final individual pipeline reach configurations have not yet been determined.

Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project be specified. CEQA also requires that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the “No Project” alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines §15126[e][2]). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives.

The No Project Alternative has the smallest environmental footprint and likely results in the smallest degree of environmental disruption. However, the No Project Alternative cannot meet the basic objectives of the NCS Repair Project to improve reliability and efficiency of the NCS. In this case the No Project Alternative represents baseline conditions, therefore, it is required that the PEIR identify an Alternate Environmentally Superior Alternative. The Alternate Environmentally Superior Alternative is the same as the Preferred Project and consists of a combination of the existing and alternate alignments and diversion structure improvements as outlined below.

• Laguna Diversion – Alternative 3

• Majors Diversion – Alternative 3

• Liddell Spring Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative 2

• Laguna/Liddell Reach – Alternate Alignment 3 (Road Alignment)

• Laguna Reach - Existing Alignment Alternative 2

• Majors Reach – Alternate Alignment 4 (Road Alignment)

• NCP Reach – Alternate Alignment 3 (High Street)

This suite of proposed actions seeks to: 1) minimize the impacts to the natural environment by minimizing construction in sensitive habitats and viewsheds to the extent feasible; and 2) avoids construction in areas to the extent feasible that would result in significant impacts to local residents and recreation associated with aesthetics, noise, traffic, and public services that are unlikely to be reduced to a less than significant level even with mitigation. This suite of alternatives would allow the modification of the Majors and Laguna diversion structures to improve operational efficiency and sediment management. It would provide for the repair and/or replacement of each of the pipeline reaches, moving the pipeline out of sensitive environmental habitats (e.g., the anadromous reach on Laguna Creek) and residential areas (e.g., residences north of High Street) where possible, while implementing appropriate construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures to allow construction in some sensitive areas where a better alternative has not been identified (e.g., Laguna Creek Gorge). The final design for the diversion modifications and the final alignments of the pipeline reaches will be determined in the project-specific CEQA analyses for each project.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 22 Executive Summary

Persons and Agencies Consulted (Chapter 18)

Federal, state, and local agencies were consulted prior to and during preparation of this PEIR. Agencies were notified of the proposed project by mailings; by scheduled public meetings; and publication of an NOP announcing preparation of the PEIR, as required by CEQA. The agencies’ viewpoints were solicited with regard to activities within the PEIR’s jurisdiction.

ES.13 References, List of Preparers, and Glossary (Chapters 19 through 21) The final chapters of this PEIR include a list of references and personal communications used in the preparation of this document, a list of the preparers of this document and their PEIR qualifications, and a glossary.

Summary of Potential Significant Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures

Table ES-3 below summarizes the potential significant environmental consequences and mitigation identified for each of the proposed alternatives and the “No Project” alternative.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 23 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 3 – Land Use Land Use Impact Type-1: Construction NCP Construction S Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts of construction and staging in LS of the proposed projects could result in Laguna urban residential and commercial areas, the City of Santa Cruz, in conjunction the temporary disruption of existing, Majors with the contractor(s) for the proposed Project, would prepare a construction developing, or approved residential, coordination plan. The coordination plan would address potential impacts commercial, industrial, extractive, related to loss of resident access to homes along the project area access roads governmental, or institutional land uses. and disruption of emergency services access during construction. This plan would be prepared in coordination with the local residents and/or commercial operators and utility services in the area. The plan would be reviewed and approved by the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department prior to any construction or site preparation activities in the project area. Residents would be given sufficient notice in advance concerning construction and future O&M activities. Although not necessary under current conditions, this mitigation measure may become necessary in the future, should substantial public access and recreational facilities be developed prior to construction. A construction coordination plan would need to be developed for Wilder Ranch State Park. A clearly marked area of construction would need to show hours of construction and the schedule. Traffic controls would also be necessary and would be a part of the construction coordination plan. Land Use Impact Type-2: Construction NCP Construction S Mitigation Measure: To minimize short-term conflicts between construction LS of the proposed project could cause Laguna/ activities and sensitive land use, a construction coordination plan would be temporary conflicts with sensitive land Liddell developed. As a part of the plan, residents would be notified of construction uses. schedules and of any potential traffic controls that would be required. Land Use Impact Type-3: O&M activities Laguna O&M S Mitigation Measure: O&M activities may result in short-term conflicts with LS of the proposed project may result in sensitive land use. As a result of these short-term conflicts, new easements short-term conflicts with sensitive land and O&M protocols would need to be developed and specified in access uses. agreements that minimally disturb local residents.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 24 Executive Summary

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 25 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 5 – Recreation Recreation Impact Type-1: Short-term Majors Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts related to temporary construction LS disruption of recreation could occur as a All Pipeline activities potentially affecting recreation use within the project area, the result of construction activities. Reaches following measures should be included in the construction plan. To minimize impacts to any future, increased recreation use, implement pipeline construction along the Liddell and Majors reaches before these areas are opened for recreational use. To address impacts associated with current recreation use (such as surfing and general beach recreation), implement construction activities during times of low usage in an attempt to avoid peak use times of the year (e.g., peak summer and winter periods). Disseminate information about locations of construction activity, staging areas, and duration of construction periods for each pipeline reach. This should include posting signs in the vicinity of the construction area and staging areas in advance of construction. It also should include posting information on the City of Santa Cruz website as well as other websites (e.g., Chamber of Commerce) that feature information about outdoor recreation opportunities in the Santa Cruz area. Offer information about alternate locations for recreation activities. Establish an exclusion zone for safety purposes during construction. Recreation Impact Type-2: The Liddell Construction S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures would be the same as those LS recreation experience of private residents Laguna/ described for Recreation Impact – Type 1. who live in or near the project area could Liddell be disrupted. Laguna Recreation Impact Type-3: Operations Majors Div. O&M S Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts related to short-term and long-term LS and maintenance activities could disrupt All Pipeline O&M activities, the following measures shall be implemented. recreation activities on a short-term basis. Reaches Conduct pipeline O&M activities during lower-use times of the year when fewer visitors would be impacted. Establish an exclusion zone for safety purposes during O&M activities. Notify potential recreation users in advance about planned O&M activities and their duration.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 26 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 5 – Recreation (cont’d) Recreation Impact Type-4: Operations Liddell O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures would be the same as those LS and maintenance activities could disrupt Laguna/ described for Recreation Impact – Type 3. recreation activities on a long-term basis Liddell for local residents. Laguna Recreation Impact Type-5: Operations Majors O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures would be the same as those LS and maintenance activities could disrupt NCP described for Recreation Impact – Type 3. recreation activities on a long-term basis. Chapter 6 – Aesthetics Aesthetic Impact Type-1: Views could Laguna/ Construction S Mitigation Measure: The presence of construction equipment at staging areas LS be prevented or substantially impaired by Liddell can detract from the more desirable features of the natural landscape. construction activities. Majors, NCP Therefore, to the extent possible, select staging areas that are screened from view by natural features of the landscape. Aesthetic Impact Type-2: Views could Laguna Construction S Mitigation Measures: LS be prevented or substantially impaired for NCP For all construction activities, try to avoid as much of the summer season the duration of the construction period. Majors as possible. The summer season is typically the peak season for recreation use. Therefore, avoiding this time period (June through August), would minimize the number of visitors affected by construction activities. The presence of construction equipment at staging areas and along the ROW can detract from the more desirable features of the natural landscape. Therefore, to the extent possible, select staging areas that are screened from view by natural features of the landscape. At the primary staging areas that would receive repeated use, plant native trees and shrubs to visually screen the site. These areas have high potential to detract from the desirable features of the natural landscape since these are the largest and will be used for a greater amount of time out of all the staging areas. Aesthetic Impact Type-3: Views could Laguna O&M S Mitigation Measure: For sections of the pipeline viewable from sensitive LS be prevented or substantially impaired by NCP viewing areas, plant rapid growing vegetation to screen the pipeline. As stated ongoing operations and maintenance for Mitigation 6-2, straight lines, such as pipelines, create the most notable activities. Majors visual impact.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 27 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 6 – Aesthetics (Continued) Aesthetic Impact Type-4: Short-term Majors O&M S Mitigation Measure: For all mowing activities, mow short discontinuous LS visual impacts could occur as a result of NCP sections of the pipeline ROW, or mow the ROW in a curvilinear fashion. ongoing mowing activities. Standard visual impact analysis approaches consider straight lines to be the most notable visual impact because they produce a higher level of contrast with the natural environment compared to curved lines. Aesthetic Impact Type-5: Long term All diversions O&M S Mitigation Measures: Glare from the pipeline can detract from the more LS views could be prevented or substantially and all desirable features of the natural landscape. Where the pipeline is placed above impaired for some of the construction pipeline ground, it should be constructed from or covered with non-reflective materials. period. reaches Chapter 7 – Geological Resources Geology and Soils Impact Type-1: All Diversions O&M S Mitigation Measure: The use of BMPs to reduce soil erosion to less than LS Potentially significant soil erosion could All Pipeline significant levels, as is described in Section 7.4.1 and would be detailed in the occur in the long-term as a result of Reaches E&SCP. Alternative methods of pipeline installation such as directional drilling, construction of diversions and pipelines. could be used across creek crossings or through steep ridges would reduce impacts from erosion in these areas. Geology and Soils Impact Type-2: All O&M S Mitigation Measure: The use of design measures based on UBC and CBC LS Potential break/failure of the DiversionsAll seismic criteria for Seismic Zone 4 as well as BMPs to reduce potential pipe structure/piping could occur as a result of Pipeline damage from ground shaking. ground shaking from a seismic event. Reaches Geology and Soils Impact Type-3: Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measure: The use of BMPs to reduce soil erosion to less than LS Potentially significant soil erosion could Majors Div. significant levels, as is described in Section 7.4.1 and would be detailed in the occur as a result of the construction of the E&SCP. Alternative methods of pipeline installation such as directional drilling, pipeline. All Pipeline could be used across creek crossings or through steep ridges would reduce Reaches impacts from erosion in these areas. Geology and Soils Impact Type-4: All Pipeline O&M S Mitigation Measures: LS Potential break/failure of the pipeline Reaches Conduct routine O&M inspections of the pipeline route, especially if a could occur as a result of slope failure significant seismic event has occurred. A slope failure that does not along the pipeline route. initially cause the pipeline to fail may create unstable ground surface conditions along the pipeline, potentially leading to failure in the pipeline in the future. In such a case, BMPs should be employed to stabilize the ground in the vicinity of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 28 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 7 – Geological Resources (continued) Geology and Soils Impact Type-4 The use of design measures and BMPs during the construction of the (Continued) pipeline to reduce the likelihood of slope failure. These BMPs may include the construction of a drainage system to divert surface and subsurface water flow and a retaining wall to support over-steepened walls. Geology and Soils Impact Type-5: Liddell Construction S Mitigation Measure: The use of design measures and BMPs to reduce LS Frac-outs could occur while horizontal Laguna/ potential for frac-outs to less than significant levels. The probability of a frac-out directional drilling beneath creek Liddell occurring would be reduced by drilling at a sufficient depth below ground crossings and through ridges. Majors surface (e.g., greater than a depth of 10 feet below the bottom of stream NCP channels and ground surface). Geology and Soils Impact Type-6: All Pipeline O&M S Mitigation Measure: The use of design measures and BMPs to reduce LS Potential break/failure of the pipeline Reaches potential pipe damage from expansive soils to less than significant levels. could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils. Geology and Soils Impact Type-7: NCP O&M S Mitigation Measure: The use of design measures and BMPs to reduce LS Potential break/failure of the pipeline potential pipe damage from the liquefaction of soils to less than significant could occur as a result of liquefaction of levels. the shallow soil from a seismic event. Chapter 8 – Hydrology and Water Quality Hydrology and Water Quality Impact All Diversions Construction S Mitigation Measures: LS Type-1: Water quality could be degraded All Pipeline Appropriate silt fences and/or cofferdams would be installed upstream such that beneficial use is reduced as a Reaches and downstream of the diversion construction site and streamflow would result of sediment generated for be piped around the construction zone. downstream transport. Measures would be implemented to minimize the potential for bentonite seeps (frac-outs), including: requiring boring crews to strictly monitor drilling fluid pressures, retaining containment equipment on site, monitoring waters downstream of the crossing sites to quickly identify any seep, immediately stopping work if a seep into a stream is detected, immediately implementing containment measures which would be specified in the SWPPP, and adhering to agency reporting requirements. Containment equipment should include staked and floating silt barriers to isolate frac-out locations from flowing water.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 29 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 8 – Hydrology and Water Quality (continued) Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Implement appropriate construction BMPs and pipeline features to Type-1 (Continued) prevent uncontrolled runoff down the pipeline per the SWPPP. This will also help control soil erosion. The use of erosion control BMPs for construction activities. The city would prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prior to construction to mitigate potential impacts to water quality. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Majors Div. O&M S No feasible mitigation measures have been identified. Minimization measures N/A Type-2: Short-term impacts associated to be developed by the city. with transport of bedded sediment load downstream of the Diversion. Chapter 9 – Biological Resources Biological Impact Type 1-Aquatic: Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures (Aquatic): To minimize impacts on aquatic resources LS Construction of the proposed project Majors Div. related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities, the following facilities could temporarily impact certain measures and BMPs shall be included: Liddell aquatic species and their habitat. Implement sediment/erosion control measures during construction at Laguna stream crossings, working in and adjacent to riparian corridors, and on Majors steep slopes; use erosion control material according to manufacturer’s specifications; and develop a SWPPP. NCP To the extent feasible, restrict construction within stream channels to the dry period of the year typically from June 15 to October 15 or when stream flows are minimal or absent. If work must be done outside of this period, then the regulatory agencies (NOAA, USFWS, CDFG) should be consulted and a qualified biologist shall survey the area prior to construction. Qualified biologist personnel should conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the presence/absence of listed species at the stream crossings and stake or flag a buffer zone around the population or habitat area in which the activities are to be avoided. If cofferdams, water bypass structures, or silt barriers are to be installed as part of the work involved, aquatic species would be relocated by a qualified biologist, consistent with applicable USFWS and CDFG permits, to ensure that fish and native aquatic species are not impacted.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 30 Executive Summary

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 31 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 9 – Biological Resources (continued) Biological Impact Type 1- Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures (Botanical/Wetland Resources): To minimize impacts LS Botanical/Wetland: Construction of the Majors Div. on botanical/wetland resources related to construction, operation, and proposed project facilities could maintenance activities, the following measures and BMPs shall be included: temporarily impact certain special-status All Pipeline Reaches Limit removal of vegetation to the minimum area necessary in the ROW plant species and their habitat. or near the diversion structure. Conduct construction and maintenance activities during the period when special-status plants are not flowering or fruiting. Conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species and/or the presence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands. If present, establish and maintain exclusion zones around special-status plant populations during construction, and for wetlands develop appropriate mitigation measures in association with the USACE. Where feasible, re-align the pipeline or employ alternative pipeline installation techniques such as directional drilling to avoid riparian or wetland areas or populations of special-status plant species. If ground disturbance should occur in an area with special-status plant species, the top ten inches of soil shall be salvaged and replaced after construction has been completed and the surface is recontoured. Recontour the ROW and restore original grades and drainage channels to minimize runoff, stabilize exposed slopes and streambanks immediately on completion of installation activities, and restore in a manner that encourages vegetation to re-establish to its pre-project condition and reduces the effects of erosion on the drainage system. Biological Impact Type 2- All Diversions O&M S Mitigation Measures (Botanical/Wetland Resources): LS Botanical/Wetland: Operations and All Pipeline Limit removal of vegetation to the minimum area necessary in the existing Maintenance Activities could impact Reaches ROW. biological resources. Conduct construction and maintenance activities during the period when special-status plants are not flowering or fruiting.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 32 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 9 – Biological Resources (continued) Biological Impact Type 1-Terrestrial Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures (Terrestrial Resources): To minimize impacts on LS Resources: Construction of the proposed Majors Div. terrestrial wildlife resources related to construction, operation, and project facilities could temporarily impact maintenance activities, the following measures and BMPs shall be included: terrestrial species and their habitat. All Pipeline Reaches To protect migratory birds, as required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there shall be no removal of woody riparian vegetation during the migratory period within the project area typically from March 1 to August 1. Conduct pre-construction protocol surveys for special-status wildlife species (i.e., nesting Cooper’s hawks, burrowing owls, white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon, Ohlone tiger beetle) shortly before construction is scheduled to begin. Establish and maintain no-disturbance buffers around active nests during the breeding season. Minimize disturbance in areas that are known to support special-status terrestrial species by limiting ground disturbance and other activities to the smallest possible corridor. To the extent possible and where feasible, place the pipeline in or adjacent to existing access roads to minimize impacts to the surrounding redwood forest and grasslands. Implement mitigation measures required by the City Department of Parks and Recreation under the Heritage Tree Ordinance. Biological Impact Type 2-Terrestrial All Diversions O&M S Mitigation Measures (Terrestrial Resources): LS Resources: Operations and Maintenance All Pipeline To protect migratory birds, as required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Activities could impact biological Reaches Act, there shall be no removal of woody riparian vegetation during the resources. migratory period within the project area typically from March 1 to August 1. Establish and maintain no-disturbance buffers around active nests during the breeding season. Minimize disturbance in areas that are known to support special-status terrestrial species by limiting ground disturbance and other activities to the smallest possible corridor.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 33 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 10 – Cultural Resources Cultural Resource Impact Type-1: All Diversions Construction S Mitigation Measures: LS Construction activities have the potential All Pipeline Conduct archival research to determine the significance of structures to impact cultural resources. Reaches within an historic context and the eligibility for listing on the NRHP and CRHR. If structures are found to be historically significant and/or are eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, then significant impacts caused by the project to the structures would be mitigated by actions such as repair, stabilization, repair, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historic structure. Construction conducted in areas or initial occupation of staging areas with known or potential cultural resource sites within 200 feet of the pipeline route or staging area would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological site would be impacted by construction activities, work in the immediate area should cease until such time that a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and recommend mitigation measures, if warranted (e.g., aboveground installation, directional drilling, etc.). Where re-routing the pipeline is not readily feasible, an archaeological survey might be conducted to determine the size and condition of known sites and the presence or absence of previously undiscovered sites within or adjacent to the proposed project alignment. The eligibility of new sites and/or structures for listing on the NRHP and CRHR would be determined and documented, if applicable. Documentation of a historical resource might include historic narratives, photographs, or architectural drawings. Results of the archaeological survey would be used to create a cultural resources management plan which would address procedures for assessing the effects of projects or other undertakings on cultural resources, identifying ways to avoid or reduce effects, and associated consultation and documentation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 34 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 11 – Air Quality Air Quality Impact Type-1: Air pollutant Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measure: Implement appropriate BMPs to minimize both dust LS emissions from construction equipment Majors Div. generation and emissions from construction equipment. may result in short-term, localized BMPs for combustion emissions include limiting or avoiding engine idle impacts to air quality. All Pipeline Reaches time between construction activities. BMPs for dust generation include the use of vehicle wash stations and daily site watering. Air Quality Impact Type-2: Air pollutant NCP Construction S Mitigation Measure: Prior to construction, the status and potential for LS emissions from the five LUST sites may O&M contaminated soil in the vicinity of the LUST sites would be determined. The occur from excavation activities in the City would determine whether construction activities in those areas could be immediate vicinity. avoided or develop an appropriate plan for materials handling if encountered. The City would develop a Health and Safety Plan that would include monitoring and appropriate clean up of contaminated soil. The excavated soil would be tested and removed to an appropriate location. Appropriate precautions would be taken during construction to monitor for emissions of volatile fuel constituents and odors when activities are taking place near these identified sites. Air Quality Impact Type-3: Air emissions NCP Construction S Mitigation Measure: Construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the trash LS may occur from the disturbance of soil dump site would be avoided if at all possible. If excavation activities in the below a nearby trash dump site. immediate vicinity of the site would be necessary, the private landowner would be contacted and asked to clean up the trash dump site. The contractor would take appropriate precautions during construction to monitor for emissions of volatile fuel constituents and odors when activities are taking place near these identified sites. Air Quality Impact Type-4: Localized air NCP O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this potential impact would be LS pollutant emissions may occur if the trash the same as those described for Air Quality Impact – Type 3. Incorporate dump site continues to be used. appropriate ROW clearance and access requirements in the ROW easement. Air Quality Impact Type-5: Air pollutant Reggiardo O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this potential impact would be LS emissions from O&M equipment may Div. the same as those described for Air Quality Impact – Type 1. result in short-term, localized impacts to air quality.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 35 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 12 – Noise Noise Impact Type-1: Noise from the Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures: Implement appropriate measures to limit the increase in LS operation of construction equipment may Majors Div. ambient noise levels as a result of construction activities. These measures result in short-term, localized increases in would include: noise levels. All Pipeline Reaches Require use of appropriate mufflers, silencers, and noise control features for equipment. Prohibit vehicles and other gas or diesel-powered equipment from unnecessary warming up, idling, and engine revving. Locate stationary construction equipment as far away from existing structures as feasible. Operate equipment and vehicles between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Noise Impact Type-2: Noise from the Laguna/ Construction S Mitigation Measure: In residential areas, residents would be informed of the LS operation of construction equipment may Liddell schedule and duration of construction activities near their homes prior to the result in short-term, localized increases in Laguna construction activities taking place, wherever possible. noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences. NCP Noise Impact Type-3: Noise from the Laguna O&M S Mitigation Measure: Ensure that the pump stations meet local noise LS operation of a newly-installed pump Majors ordinances. This may require the use of sound walls, mufflers, or other sound- station would result in both short-term and reducing technology. long-term, localized increases in noise levels. Noise Impact Type-4: Noise from the Reggiardo O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this potential impact would be LS operation of O&M equipment may result Div. the same as those described for Noise Impact – Type 1. in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. Chapter 13 – Hazards and Hazardous Wastes Hazards Impact Type-1: Potential All Diversions Construction S Mitigation Measure: An SWPPP would be prepared and adhered to during LS release or spill of hazardous materials All Pipeline O&M construction activities. The SWPPP would include establishing suitable re- could occur as a result of the construction Reaches fueling locations that would minimize the potential for spills to enter sensitive and O&M activities at the areas. As required by OSHA, construction personnel handling hazardous diversions/pipeline reaches. materials would be trained to understand the hazards associated with these materials and would be instructed in the proper methods for storing, handling, and using these hazardous materials.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 36 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 13 – Hazards and Hazardous Wastes (continued) Hazards Impact Type-2: Potential fire All Diversions Construction S Mitigation Measure: Appropriate measures would be taken to minimize the LS could occur as a result of the construction All Pipeline O&M risk of fire. Vehicles and construction equipment would be used with caution to and O&M activities at the Reaches prevent engines from igniting dry vegetation, and crews would be trained in diversions/pipeline reaches. proper response should an incident occur. Special precautions would be identified and taken to minimize the potential for fires resulting from the welding and fusing processes necessary for linking sections of pipeline together. BMPs would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for accidental spills or fires involving the use of hazardous materials to less than significant levels. Construction in high fire risk areas (e.g., grasslands) would be conducted as early in the year as possible to minimize the fire risk. Hazards Impact Type-3: Potential NCP Construction S Mitigation Measure: If excavation must occur in the area containing LS exposure to contaminated soil and hazardous materials, a suitable plan would be developed to minimize and groundwater could occur as a result of the mitigate for such impacts. The City would ensure that contaminated soil and construction of the pipeline. groundwater that are encountered during construction activities are handled appropriately and that appropriate precautions be taken to protect workers from potential chemical exposure and physical injury while working at these locations. The City would further assess the potential for encountering contaminated materials at the identified sites prior to initiating construction activities along this reach so either these areas can be avoided or appropriate planning for the material handling can be planned. Where contaminated soil may be encountered the pipeline construction methodology should be modified to provide permanent chemical barrier between the contaminated soil and pipeline. For the unauthorized trash dump site, the city would contact the landowners and request that the site be cleaned prior to construction if extensive excavation must occur in the vicinity of the site. Hazards Impact Type-4: Potential All Diversions O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this potential impact would be LS release or spill of hazardous materials Majors the same as those described for Hazards Impact – Type 1. could occur as a result of the O&M activities at the diversions/pipeline All pipeline reaches. reaches

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 37 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 14 – Transportation Transportation and Traffic Impact Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts of construction-related traffic and LS Type-1: Construction of the proposed Majors Div. staging on normal vehicle traffic and area road use, the City of Santa Cruz, in project facilities could result in temporary conjunction with the contractor(s) for the proposed project, would prepare a increases in traffic levels, traffic delays or All Pipeline construction traffic mitigation plan to address potential impacts related to increased traffic hazards. Reaches construction traffic routes, construction equipment staging, construction vehicle parking road closures/blockages, detours, resident access to homes along project area access roads, and emergency vehicle access during construction. This plan would be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works departments prior to any construction or site preparation activities in the project area. Elements of a mitigation plan would include, but not be limited to, the following: Designated Access Routes - Appropriate construction vehicle routes would be identified from Highway 1 along access roads for each of the pipeline reaches. These routes would be determined in advance and in coordination with the city, local residents, and emergency response personnel. Maximum Speed Limits - Maximum speed limits would be identified for trucks and heavy equipment traveling through residential neighborhoods adjacent to the project area. No Weekend Construction - Construction activities in the project area would be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Limited Travel During Commute Times - Construction vehicles would avoid, to the extent feasible, the peak commute hours of 7 AM to 9 AM and 3 PM to 6 PM. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access (NCP Reach only) - Bicycle and pedestrian access along the NCP Reach would be maintained during construction to the maximum extent feasible. Lane Closure/Blockage Timing - Lane closures would be limited to noncommute times, to the extent feasible, such as between 9 AM to 3 PM. Lane Closure/Blockage Monitor - A public safety monitor or flagperson would be present during all lane closures/blockages to regulate vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic through the construction zone. Signage - Warning signage would be visible during construction to alert motorists of potential lane closures/blockages and detours and to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of any safety hazards along the road.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 38 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Chapter 14 – Transportation (continued) Transportation and Traffic Impact Local Resident Access - Provisions would be made to provide vehicular Type-1 (Continued) access to residences along pipeline access roads at all times during construction. Phone Number for Complaints - The city would post at least one sign during active construction containing the name and telephone number of the city staff person the public may contact to register complaints about construction traffic or access. The city would keep a written record of all such complaints and investigate the problems registered by the public within 24 hours of receiving the complaints. Emergency Vehicle Access - Emergency vehicle access would be provided along major transportation routes at all times during construction. The local fire and police departments would be notified of the approximate time and duration of planned lane closures and appropriate detour routes at least 48 hours in advance of any road closures and detour routes. Transportation and Traffic Impact Laguna Construction S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this type of impact would be the LS Type-2: Construction of the proposed Majors same as those described for Transportation and Traffic Impact – Type 1. project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, NCP increased traffic hazards, or road closures. Transportation and Traffic Impact Reggiardo O&M S Mitigation Measure: Mitigation measures for this type of impact would be the LS Type-3: O&M activities of the proposed Div. same as those described for Transportation and Traffic Impact – Type 1. project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays or increased traffic hazards. Chapter 15 – Public Services and Utilities Utilities and Public Service Impact All Pipeline Construction S Mitigation Measures: To minimize impacts related to restricted access for LS Type-1: Temporary road closures and Reaches emergency services during periods of construction, the following measures traffic controls due to construction would be included in the construction plan: activities may temporarily impact The restricted access impacts would be addressed by the construction emergency services, garbage services traffic mitigation plan described in Chapter 14. and other services throughout the proposed project area. A copy of the mitigation plan would be provided to the Central Fire Protection District and to American Medical Response, as well as any other fire/medical providers operating in the Project area. North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 39 Executive Summary

TABLE ES-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND MITIGATION MEASURES (cont’d) Significance Significance Reach or Type of Impact Before Mitigation Measure/s After Diversion Impact Mitigation Mitigation Utilities and Public Service Impact Laguna Div. Construction S Mitigation Measure: Ensure the construction contractor complies with City’s LS Type-2: Construction and replacement of Majors Div. guidelines for protecting existing facilities. These guidelines describe the proposed project facilities could procedures for locating, protecting, and relocating existing underground utilities require that existing utility infrastructure NCP so that any service interruptions are temporary. be relocated or temporarily shut down, resulting in interruptions in service. Utilities and Public Service Impact NCP Construction S Mitigation Measures: Impacts to schools related to construction activity would LS Type-3: Construction of the proposed be mitigated as follows: project facilities could impact local school Implement all traffic mitigation measures (except #3) presented in Chapter 14; service. and Schedule potentially disruptive activities when the affected schools are not in session.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 40 Executive Summary

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ES- 41 Contents

Table of Contents

Table of Contents...... i

1.0 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Programmatic EIR...... 1-1 1.2 Repair Program Overview ...... 1-2 1.2.1 Regional Location ...... 1-2 1.2.2 Existing Study Area Characteristics ...... 1-2 1.3 Overview of EIR Process ...... 1-3 1.3.1 PEIR Content ...... 1-3 1.3.2 Public Involvement Process ...... 1-4 1.3.3 Public Review...... 1-4

2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives...... 2-1 2.1 Introduction...... 2-1 2.2 Proposed Project Overview...... 2-1 2.3 Project Location...... 2-2 2.4 Project Background ...... 2-3 2.4.1 System Limitations ...... 2-3 2.5 Project Objectives ...... 2-4 2.5.1 Project Objectives for Diversion Structures...... 2-4 2.5.2 Project Objectives for Pipeline Facilities ...... 2-5 2.6 Project Characteristics ...... 2-5 2.6.1 Description of Existing Facilities...... 2-6 2.6.2 Existing Diversion Facilities...... 2-6 2.6.3 Existing Diversion Operations and Maintenance Activities ...... 2-8 2.6.4 Existing Pipeline Facilities...... 2-9 2.6.5 Existing Pipeline Operations and Maintenance Activities ...... 2-10 2.7 Project Alternatives ...... 2-12 2.7.1 Proposed Diversion Alternatives ...... 2-12 2.7.2 Proposed Diversion Operations and Maintenance Activities ...... 2-13 2.7.3 Proposed Pipeline Alternatives ...... 2-14 2.7.4 General Construction Actions for the Proposed Project...... 2-22 2.8 Permit and Review Requirements...... 2-26 2.8.1 County of Santa Cruz...... 2-26 2.8.2 State Regulations...... 2-27 2.8.3 Federal Regulations ...... 2-28

3.0 Land Use and Planning...... 3-1 3.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 3-1 3.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 3-1 3.2.1 Local Regulations...... 3-1 3.3 Existing Land Use and Planning Conditions ...... 3-1 3.3.1 RMC Pacific Materials Quarry...... 3-2 3.3.2 Coastal Dairies Property ...... 3-2 3.3.3 Wilder Ranch State Park...... 3-2 3.3.4 Private Lands in Unincorporated Areas ...... 3-3 3.3.5 City of Santa Cruz ...... 3-4

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page i Contents

3.4 Potential Land Use and Planning Impacts ...... 3-5 3.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 3-5 3.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 3-6 3.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 3-6 3.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 3-7 3.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 3-8 3.5.2 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 3-8 3.5.3 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna...... 3-9 3.5.4 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 3-9 3.5.5 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 3-10 3.6 Mitigation Measures ...... 3-11

4.0 Agricultural Resources...... 4-1 4.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 4-1 4.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 4-1 4.2.1 Federal Regulations...... 4-1 4.2.2 State Regulations...... 4-1 4.2.3 Local Regulations...... 4-1 4.3 Existing Agricultural Resource Conditions ...... 4-2 4.3.1 Important Farmland Categories ...... 4-3 4.3.2 Agricultural Production in County of Santa Cruz...... 4-4 4.3.3 Irrigation Sources and Outages ...... 4-4 4.4 Potential Agriculture Impacts...... 4-5 4.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 4-5 4.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 4-5 4.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 4-5 4.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 4-7 4.5.1 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 4-8 4.5.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 4-9 4.5.3 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 4-9

5.0 Recreation...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 5-1 5.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 5-1 5.2.1 State Regulations...... 5-1 5.2.2 Local Regulations...... 5-1 5.3 Existing Recreation Conditions ...... 5-2 5.3.1 TPL Coast Dairies Properties...... 5-2 5.3.2 Red, White and Blue Beach...... 5-2 5.3.3 Wilder Ranch State Park...... 5-2 5.3.4 Affected Recreation Areas in the City of Santa Cruz ...... 5-3 5.3.5 Future Recreation Development and Use...... 5-4 5.3.6 Summary of Conditions...... 5-4 5.4 Potential Recreation Impacts ...... 5-5 5.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 5-5 5.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 5-5 5.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 5-5 5.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 5-7 5.5.1 Majors Diversion ...... 5-7 5.5.2 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 5-8 5.5.3 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 5-10

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ii Contents

5.5.4 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 5-11 5.5.5 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 5-13 5.5.6 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 5-15 5.5.7 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 5-16 5.5.8 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 5-17

6.0 Aesthetic Resources...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 6-1 6.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 6-1 6.2.1 State Regulations...... 6-1 6.2.2 Local Regulations...... 6-2 6.3 Existing Visual Resource Conditions...... 6-2 6.3.1 Project Area ...... 6-2 6.3.2 Project Area Landscape Features...... 6-3 6.3.3 Significant Visual Features, Scenic Corridors, and Public Views/Vistas ...... 6-3 6.3.4 Scenic Roads ...... 6-3 6.3.5 Visual Conditions along the Existing Alignment ...... 6-4 6.4 Potential Visual Resources Impacts...... 6-5 6.4.1 Thresholds of Significance ...... 6-5 6.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 6-5 6.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 6-6 6.4.4 Staging Area Impacts...... 6-7 6.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 6-8 6.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 6-8 6.5.2 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 6-9 6.5.3 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 6-10 6.5.4 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 6-13 6.5.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 6-14 6.5.6 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 6-15

7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources ...... 7-1 7.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 7-1 7.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 7-1 7.2.1 County Regulations...... 7-1 7.3 Existing Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Conditions ...... 7-1 7.3.1 Geology and Geologic Hazards ...... 7-1 7.3.2 Paleontological Resources...... 7-4 7.3.3 Soils ...... 7-5 7.3.4 Mineral Resources ...... 7-5 7.4 Potential Environmental Impacts...... 7-6 7.4.1 Thresholds of Significance ...... 7-6 7.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 7-7 7.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 7-8 7.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 7-12 7.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion...... 7-13 7.5.2 Laguna Diversion ...... 7-13 7.5.3 Majors Diversion ...... 7-14 7.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 7-14 7.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 7-17 7.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 7-20

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page iii Contents

7.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 7-22 7.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 7-26 7.5.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 7-29 7.5.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 7-30

8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality...... 8-1 8.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 8-1 8.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 8-1 8.2.1 Federal Regulations...... 8-1 8.2.2 State Regulations...... 8-1 8.2.3 Local Regulations...... 8-2 8.3 Existing Hydrology and Water Quality Conditions...... 8-4 8.3.1 Watersheds...... 8-4 8.3.2 Precipitation ...... 8-6 8.3.3 Gaging Records ...... 8-7 8.3.4 Mean Daily Flow...... 8-8 8.3.5 Lagoon Formation and Breaching...... 8-8 8.3.6 Water Quality ...... 8-9 8.4 Potential Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts...... 8-12 8.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 8-12 8.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 8-12 8.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 8-13 8.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 8-15 8.5.1 Laguna Diversion Structure...... 8-16 8.5.2 Majors Diversion Structure...... 8-16 8.5.3 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 8-17 8.5.4 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 8-18 8.5.5 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna...... 8-19 8.5.6 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 8-20 8.5.7 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 8-21 8.5.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 8-22 8.5.9 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 8-23

9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources ...... 9-1 9.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 9-1 9.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 9-1 9.2.1 Federal Regulations...... 9-1 9.2.2 State Regulations...... 9-2 9.2.3 Local Regulations...... 9-3 9.3 Existing Biological and Ecological Conditions ...... 9-4 9.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology ...... 9-4 9.3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Plant and Terrestrial Species ...... 9-9 9.3.3 Aquatic Biology ...... 9-15 9.3.4 Potential Biological Impacts ...... 9-32 9.4 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 9-33 9.4.1 Botanical Resources ...... 9-34 9.4.2 Wildlife Resources ...... 9-38 9.4.3 Aquatic Resources...... 9-39 9.5 Reach-specific Impacts ...... 9-42 9.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure...... 9-43

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page iv Contents

9.5.2 Laguna Diversion Structure...... 9-44 9.5.3 Majors Diversion Structure...... 9-47 9.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 9-51 9.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 9-53 9.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 9-55 9.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 9-58 9.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 9-64 9.5.9 Impacts Found to be Not Significant ...... 9-68

10.0 Cultural Resources ...... 10-1 10.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 10-1 10.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 10-1 10.2.1 Federal Regulations ...... 10-1 10.2.2 State Regulations...... 10-2 10.2.3 Local Regulations...... 10-2 10.3 Existing Cultural Resources Conditions ...... 10-3 10.3.1 Historical Conditions ...... 10-3 10.3.2 Methodology...... 10-6 10.3.3 Known Cultural Resources in the Project Area ...... 10-6 10.3.4 Historic Structures Adjacent to Pipeline Route ...... 10-9 10.3.5 Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission ...... 10-9 10.4 Potential Cultural Impacts ...... 10-10 10.4.1 Thresholds of Significance ...... 10-10 10.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 10-10 10.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 10-11 10.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 10-11 10.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure ...... 10-12 10.5.2 Laguna Diversion Structure...... 10-12 10.5.3 Majors Diversion Structure...... 10-12 10.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 10-13 10.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 10-13 10.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 10-14 10.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 10-14 10.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 10-14 10.5.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 10-15 10.5.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 10-15

11.0 Air Resources...... 11-1 11.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 11-1 11.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 11-1 11.2.1 Federal Regulations ...... 11-1 11.2.2 State Regulations...... 11-2 11.3 Existing Air Quality conditions ...... 11-2 11.4 Potential Air Quality Impacts ...... 11-3 11.4.1 Thresholds of Significance ...... 11-3 11.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 11-3 11.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 11-3 11.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 11-4 11.5.1 Pipeline Reach 5 - NCP ...... 11-5 11.5.2 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 11-6

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page v Contents

12.0 Noise ...... 12-1 12.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 12-1 12.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 12-1 12.2.1 Federal Regulations...... 12-1 12.2.2 State Regulations...... 12-1 12.2.3 Local Regulations...... 12-2 12.3 Existing Noise Conditions...... 12-2 12.4 Potential Noise Impacts...... 12-2 12.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 12-2 12.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 12-3 12.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 12-3 12.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 12-4 12.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 12-4 12.5.2 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna...... 12-5 12.5.3 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 12-6 12.5.4 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 12-7 12.5.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 12-7 12.5.6 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 12-8

13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste...... 13-1 13.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 13-1 13.2 Regulatory Considerations...... 13-1 13.2.1 Federal Regulations...... 13-1 13.2.2 State Regulations...... 13-1 13.3 Existing Conditions...... 13-2 13.3.1 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes...... 13-2 13.3.2 Fire Hazards...... 13-3 13.4 Potential Environmental Impacts...... 13-3 13.4.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 13-3 13.4.2 Impact Methodology...... 13-4 13.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 13-4 13.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 13-7 13.5.1 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna...... 13-7 13.5.2 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 13-8 13.5.3 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 13-8 13.5.4 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 13-9 13.5.5 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 13-10

14.0 Transportation and Traffic ...... 14-1 14.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 14-1 14.1.1 Regulatory Considerations...... 14-1 14.1.2 Local Regulations...... 14-1 14.2 Existing Transportation and Traffic Conditions...... 14-1 14.2.1 Roads...... 14-1 14.3 Potential Transportation and Traffic Impacts...... 14-3 14.3.1 Thresholds of Significance...... 14-3 14.3.2 Impact Methodology...... 14-3 14.3.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 14-4 14.4 Site-Specific Impacts...... 14-4 14.4.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure...... 14-5 14.4.2 Laguna Diversion Structure...... 14-5

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page vi Contents

14.4.3 Majors Diversion Structure...... 14-5 14.4.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell...... 14-6 14.4.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell...... 14-6 14.4.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 14-7 14.4.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors ...... 14-8 14.4.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 14-9 14.4.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 14-10 14.4.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 14-11

15.0 Public Services and Utilities ...... 15-1 15.1 Introduction/Region of Influence...... 15-1 15.2 Regulatory Considerations ...... 15-1 15.2.1 Federal Regulations ...... 15-1 15.2.2 State Regulations...... 15-1 15.2.3 Local Regulations...... 15-2 15.3 Existing Public Services and Utilities Conditions...... 15-2 15.3.1 Wastewater ...... 15-2 15.3.2 Potable (Drinking) Water...... 15-2 15.3.3 Natural Gas ...... 15-2 15.3.4 Electricity...... 15-3 15.3.5 Police Services...... 15-3 15.3.6 Fire Protection Services ...... 15-3 15.3.7 Schools ...... 15-3 15.3.8 Waste ...... 15-3 15.4 Potential Public Services and Utilities Impacts...... 15-4 15.4.1 Impact Methodology...... 15-4 15.4.2 Thresholds of Significance ...... 15-4 15.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts ...... 15-5 15.5 Site-Specific Impacts...... 15-5 15.5.1 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna ...... 15-6 15.5.2 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP ...... 15-7 15.5.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures...... 15-8 15.5.4 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 15-8

16.0 CEQA Considerations...... 16-1 16.1 Introduction...... 16-1 16.2 Significant Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources...... 16-1 16.3 Growth Inducing Impacts...... 16-1 16.3.1 Direct Growth Inducing Effects...... 16-2 16.3.2 Indirect Growth-Inducing Effects ...... 16-2 16.3.3 Regulatory Barriers to Growth...... 16-2 16.3.4 Conclusion ...... 16-2 16.4 Cumulative Impacts...... 16-2 16.4.1 City Water Projects ...... 16-3 16.4.2 Aesthetics...... 16-5 16.4.3 Agricultural Resources ...... 16-6 16.4.4 Air Quality...... 16-6 16.4.5 Biological Resources...... 16-6 16.4.6 Cultural Resources...... 16-7 16.4.7 Geology, Minerals, Soils and Paleontology...... 16-7 16.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...... 16-7

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page vii Contents

16.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...... 16-8 16.4.10 Land Use and Planning...... 16-8 16.4.11 Noise...... 16-8 16.4.12 Public Services and Utilities...... 16-8 16.4.13 Recreation...... 16-9 16.4.14 Transportation/Traffic...... 16-9 16.5 Effects Found to be Not Significant...... 16-9 16.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts...... 16-9

17.0 Project Alternatives ...... 17-1 17.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives...... 17-1 17.2 Overview of the Alternatives Selection Process...... 17-2 17.3 Objectives of the Proposed Project...... 17-2 17.3.1 Potentially Significant Impacts ...... 17-3 17.4 Alternatives Considered ...... 17-3 17.4.1 Initial Alternative Screening Criteria...... 17-3 17.4.2 North Coast Pipeline System Alternatives Screening Criteria...... 17-4 17.5 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed...... 17-5 17.5.1 Laguna Alternative 4 ...... 17-5 17.5.2 Laguna Alternative 5 ...... 17-5 17.6 Comparative Analysis of the Various Reach Alternatives ...... 17-6 17.6.1 Liddell Reach Comparison...... 17-7 17.6.2 Laguna Diversion Comparison...... 17-7 17.6.3 Laguna Reach Comparison ...... 17-8 17.6.4 Laguna/ Liddell Reach Comparison...... 17-8 17.6.5 Majors Diversion Comparison...... 17-9 17.6.6 Majors Reach Comparisons (Ridge Top)...... 17-9 17.6.7 Majors Reach Comparison (Road Alternative)...... 17-10 17.6.8 NCP-Santa Cruz Reach Comparison...... 17-11 17.6.9 No Project Alternative ...... 17-11 17.6.10 Summary...... 17-13 17.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...... 17-14

18.0 Persons and Agencies Consulted ...... 18-1 18.1 Agencies and Representatives Contacted ...... 18-1 18.2 Scoping ...... 18-2

19.0 References...... 19-1 19.1 Personal Communication ...... 19-12

20.0 List of Preparers...... 20-1

21.0 Glossary...... 21-1

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page viii Acronyms

Acronyms

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AHMs acutely hazardous materials APE area of potential effect AQMD Air Quality Management District AQMP Air Quality Management Plan AST aboveground storage tank AWP Annual Workplan Sites bgs below ground surface BLM Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices BRM bedrock mortar BTEX Benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylenes CAA Clean Air Act CA FID California Facility Inventory Database CARB California Air Resources Board CA SLIC California Active Toxic Site Investigations CAL-SITES Database contains both known and potential hazardous substance sites Caltrans California Department of Transportation CBC California Building Code CCA California Coastal Act CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CDPR California State Parks CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFCP California Farmland Conservancy Program CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CHMIRS California Hazardous Materials Incident Report System City City of Santa Cruz CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon monoxide CONSENT Superfund consent decrees CORTESE Database identifies public drinking water wells with detectable levels of contamination CPS Coast Pump Station CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CWA Clean Water Act dB decibel dBA ‘A weighted’ decibel scale dbh diameter at breast height

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page ix Contents dBLdn decibels averaged for day and night DEED List of Deed Restrictions Delisted NPL Delisted National Priority List Sites DOC Department of Conservation DRYCLEANERS Dry-cleaning Facilities List DWR Department of Water Resources EFH Essential Fish Habitat EFLC East Fork of Liddell Creek EIR Environmental Impact Report (CEQA) ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FINDS Facility Index System FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FTTS A complete administrative case and inspection listing from the FIFRA/TSCA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act/Toxic Substances Control Act] Tracking System for all ten EPA regions HAZNET Database of Hazardous Waste Manifests HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDPE high-density polyethylene HES Hagar Environmental Science HIST UST Historical underground storage tank listing HMIRS Hazardous Materials Incident Report System HSAA Health and Safety Account Act HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law id inside diameter IS Initial Study IWP Integrated Water Plan LAG Laguna Creek LAG-Alt Laguna Creek Alternative LAG-Div Laguna Creek Diversion LAG/LID Laguna/Liddell LAG/LID-Alt Laguna/Liddell Alternative LCP Local Coastal Program LID Liddell Pipeline LID-Alt Liddell Alternative LUST leaky underground storage tank LWD Large Woody Debris MAJ Majors Creek MAJ-Alt Majors Creek Alternative MAJ-Div Majors Creek Diversion MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Metro Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation District MLD Most Likely Descendent MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System MINES Mines Master Index File MRZ Mineral Resource Zones MRZ-2 Mineral Resource Zones-2 MSDS Material Safety Data Sheets msl mean sea level

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page x Acronyms

MTBE Methylene tertiary butyl ether NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCAB North Central Coast Air Basin NCP North Coast Pipeline NCS North Coast Pipeline System NFPA National Fire Protection Administration NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (see NOAA Fisheries) NOAA Fisheries National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service (formerly NMFS) NOP Notice of Preparation Notify 65 Records contain facility notifications about any release that could impact drinking water NOx Nitrogen oxides NPDES National Permit Discharge Elimination System NPL Liens Federal Superfund Liens NRHP National Registry of Historic Places ntu nephelometric turbidity unit NWIC Northwest Information Center O&M Operation and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PADS PCB Activity Database System p.d. pipeline distance PEIR Programmatic Environmental Impact Report PM10 particle matter less than 10 microns in diameter ppt parts-per-thousand RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RMC RMC Pacific Materials Quarry (formerly RMC-Lonestar Quarry) ROD Records of Decision ROG Reactive organic gases ROI Region of Influence ROW right-of-way RRP Rehabilitation and Replacement Program RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB State Bridge SCS Soil Conservation Service SCWD Santa Cruz Water Department SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SGMP Soil and Groundwater Management Plan SOx Sulfur oxides SP State Park SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SR State Reserve SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SZ Scientific Resource Zone TED Transportation Engineering Department

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page xi Contents

THP Timber Harvest Plan TPHg Total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline TPL Trust for Public Land TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UBC Uniform Building Code UC Berkeley University of California at Berkeley UC Santa Cruz University of California at Santa Cruz USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UST underground storage tank VOC volatile organic compounds WDS waste discharge system WMUDS/SWAT Waste Management Unit Database

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page xii 1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Scope of the Programmatic EIR

The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) proposes to implement a long-term repair program for the North Coast Pipeline and Diversion System also referred to in this document as the North Coast System (NCS). This system traverses through both the city and county of Santa Cruz and supplies approximately 30 percent of the drinking water for the city. The NCS is in need of repair to maintain it as a reliable and efficient delivery of water. The repair program would be implemented over a period of 15- to 20- years, with portions of the proposed work occurring along existing pipeline routes. In addition, much of the proposed pipeline replacement and repair, as well as the proposed repair work on the diversion facilities, would not require substantial changes in operations and maintenance (O&M) from baseline activities conducted for the existing pipeline.

This environmental impact report (EIR) is a Programmatic EIR (PEIR), prepared under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15168. In recognition of this, the alternatives and components of the NCS have been developed at a conceptual level, and as a result, the environmental review included in this document has also been conducted at a conceptual level. The PEIR is intended to take advantage of this opportunity to consider cumulative impacts, facilitate the analysis of a wide range of alternatives, and allow the city to consider broad policy alternatives and mitigation measures at an early stage in the development of the NCS.

CEQA Guidelines define a PEIR as a “PEIR, which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:

(1) Geographically;

(2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions;

(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program; or

(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways” (CEQA Guidelines § 15168).

Because it is a PEIR, this document addresses the potential impacts and mitigation measures for the overall system repair project. As individual components are subsequently proposed for implementation as projects within the scope of the program, the City of Santa Cruz will then determine the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review. The resulting environmental review would depend on the scope of the project and its anticipated environmental effects and could include an addendum to this PEIR, a subsequent EIR, a supplemental EIR, a mitigated negative declaration, or a negative declaration. The environmental review process will comply with the CEQA requirements for public notice and review of all further environmental documentation for system repair projects, thus assuring that all interested parties have the opportunity to review and comment on the implementation of components.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 1-1 1.0 Introduction

1.2 Repair Program Overview

The project area for the pipeline repair program is in Santa Cruz County, primarily north of the City of Santa Cruz. The program is intended to evaluate options for the repair and/or replacement of the aging pipeline, as well as repair of the diversion structures to ensure a safe, efficient, and reliable supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz. No additional pipeline capacity would result from the program and all program facilities would be city-owned facilities. Actual construction of the various pipeline reaches would depend on the availability of funding and subsequent environmental documentation.

1.2.1 Regional Location The Santa Cruz North Coast System Repair Project is located in Santa Cruz County on the central California coast. The City of Santa Cruz is located approximately 75 miles south of San Francisco in Santa Cruz County, on the northern shore of Monterey Bay (Figure 1-1).

1.2.2 Existing Study Area Characteristics Topography within the project area is diverse and can be divided into three distinct areas: Santa Cruz Mountains to the north and northeast, coastal terraces along Monterey Bay, and Pajaro Valley to the south and southeast. The Santa Cruz Mountains, like most of central California, are marked by winter rains and summer droughts. Of the county’s 441 square miles, approximately 74 percent are privately owned and not urbanized (undeveloped, rural, agricultural, open space, or developed in parcels larger than 5 acres), 14 percent are urbanized, and 12 percent are in public ownership (City of Santa Cruz 1994).

Northern Santa Cruz County is characterized by sparse rural residential development in the mid to upper slopes of the Ben Lomond Mountain and large tracks of agricultural fields on gentle slopes toward the coastline. California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR or “California State Parks”) owns and manages Wilder Ranch State Park, a 6,000-acre property along the pipeline route.

Major categories of land use in the project area include mountain residential; agriculture; commercial agriculture; and existing parks and recreation. In general, mountain residential areas are located east of the Coast Dairies Property and extend from beyond the Reggiardo Diversion in the north to the Pacific Coast Highway (State Route 1, hereinafter referred to as “Highway 1”) to the southwest. Much of the agriculture (commercial and private) is located along the west-side of Highway 1, stretching from north of the project area to just outside the City of Santa Cruz. Existing parks and recreation areas include much of the Wilder Ranch State Park and Moore Creek Preserve, both located west of the city.

The native flora of the project area has been greatly modified over the years by human activities including grazing, clearing of scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland, and the logging of redwoods and Douglas fir. Additionally, lime and sand quarrying, tanbark oak collecting, row crop farming, and planting of exotic trees and shrubs have also contributed to the present make up of vegetation communities in the area. There are six vegetation communities found in the project area, including woodland and forest series, riparian forest, coastal scrub, grasslands and artificial ponds, agricultural and urban plant communities, and wetlands.

The Santa Cruz area has a rich cultural history including prehistoric occupation by Native Americans (ancestors to the Ohlone), as well as the Spanish and the Mexicans. By 1900, Santa Cruz and the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 1-2 1.0 Introduction

North Coast had become an industrial hub, producing timber and mining products. Tourists from San Francisco were also drawn to the area, resulting in the establishment of numerous resorts in the mountains above the coast.

Major roadways in the project area include Highway 1, the main transportation corridor connecting Santa Cruz County’s major urban areas and rural areas north and south of the county. Highway 1 and local roads such as Bonny Doon, Smith Grade, Laguna Road, State Highway 9 (“Highway 9”), Meder Street, and High Street provide vehicular access to the pipeline reaches within the project area. Although some of the access roads in the project area are private roadways that are typically unpaved, most roads are two-lane paved, winding, and rural roadways that traverse through scenic terrain.

1.3 Overview of EIR Process

Environmental review under CEQA is directed by the lead agency. The SCWD is the lead agency, with primary authority for approving the proposed Project and, as such, is responsible for ensuring adequate review of the environmental impacts of the project. When the PEIR is completed, the City is responsible for certifying the document as complete; when the PEIR is certified, the City is responsible for approving the proposed Project.

Public agencies with decision-making authority over particular aspects of a project are termed responsible agencies under CEQA. Responsible agencies that may review and comment on the PEIR according to the PEIR areas of expertise include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). In addition, permits or authorizations from these agencies must be obtained before construction of the project can begin.

1.3.1 PEIR Content This PEIR evaluates the potential for changes in the environment as a result of the North Coast System Repair Project. The project includes various interrelated project components that would be carried out within the project area with the purpose of delivering raw water to the City of Santa Cruz. The city determined that the proposed Project could result in significant impacts to the environment and, as the lead agency, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 19, 2004, for preparation of a PEIR. Under CEQA, the purpose of the NOP is to notify the responsible agencies, trustee, and involved agencies and the public that a PEIR will be prepared. The NOP also solicited guidance from these agencies as to the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the PEIR (CEQA Guidelines § 15375).

The following resource areas were identified during the scoping process as warranting detailed analysis in the PEIR: land use and planning (including consistency with the Local Coastal Program), soils and geology, hydrology and water quality, biological resources, cultural resources, aesthetics, noise, air quality, traffic and circulation, and hazards and hazardous waste. Letters received in response to the June 9, 2004 NOP notification were prepared by:

• The Refugio Group, Smith Grade Road

• Native American Heritage Commission

• Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 1-3 1.0 Introduction

• Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

• David and Stephanie Mills

• Jane Belnap

Specific comments received by these entities can be found in Appendix G (Public Scoping).

1.3.2 Public Involvement Process Public involvement is a key part of the PEIR process. Methods to involve the public in the process have included or will include the following:

• Issuing an NOP on June 9, 2004

• Publishing notices of public meetings in newspapers with a wide circulation and encouraging written comments

• Creating and maintaining a mailing list to disseminate information about the decision-making process

• Providing a 45-day comment period upon the release of the draft PEIR

1.3.3 Public Review Upon completion of the draft PEIR, the City of Santa Cruz will file a notice of completion with the State Office of Planning and Research, and a 45-day public comment period will begin. The city will also mail notices to agencies and individuals on the mailing list and to the Santa Cruz County Clerk’s office. The public review period will provide an opportunity for the public to review the document and to offer comments. The city will respond to all comments on the draft PEIR in a final PEIR.

The public can send written comments on the draft PEIR to the following address:

A final PEIR, which will discuss the comments received on the draft PEIR, will be published and made available for review. If the final PEIR is found to have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, then it will be certified as complete by the Santa Cruz City Council. If no appeal of the project is submitted to the city council within 10 days of approval of the PEIR, the Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz will sign the resolution certifying the PEIR; then a notice of determination will be filed with the California Office of Planning and Research.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 1-4 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.1 Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the proposed Project, a brief description of the project location, an explanation of the project objectives, a detailed description of the proposed Project and a summary of the project alternatives. A summary of potential agency permit and approval requirements is also provided at the end of this chapter.

2.2 Proposed Project Overview

The proposed Project is a 16-mile pipeline replacement project. Included in the proposed Project is the repair of the water diversion facilities that divert water to various pipelines in the system. The project would be implemented over a period of 15 to 20 years. Much of the proposed pipeline replacement as well as the proposed repair work to the diversion facilities would not require substantial changes in O&M from baseline activities conducted for the existing pipeline. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in system capacity. The entire NCS is located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County (Figure 2-1). The NCS includes five distinct pipeline reaches (Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, Majors and the North Coast Pipeline Reach [NCP Reach]). The system extends above ground and underground through developed and undeveloped areas, and traverses along or beneath roadways. The purpose of the NCS is to divert flow from the creeks in the upper watersheds via three feeder pipelines (Liddell, Laguna, and Majors) that connect to the NCP Reach for delivery to the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. The treated water is then distributed to service area customers.

Repair work on the NCS would include replacement of the supply pipelines and repair of the diversion structures. The pipeline replacement work would include replacement of the pipelines in their current alignments or the construction of new alternative alignments, designed to minimize impacts to sensitive habitats, for example potentially sensitive riparian areas. Due to the size of the NCS and funding limitations, work on each of the five pipeline reaches would likely occur independent of each other and could include a mix of existing and new alignments. It is also possible that the pipeline routing may require a change from the present gravity-flow system to a pumped system for the Laguna or Majors reaches. Pumps would provide the required pressure needed to lift water from the diversions to the ridge top areas of the various pipeline alignments. These pumps would not increase water capacity in the system.

Under the proposed Project, repair of the old diversion structures would also occur. Modifications to these structures, which are located above the anadromous reaches on the creeks, would include the installation of a cofferdam and a temporary bypass system, dewatering, earthwork, reinforced concrete demolition and construction, metal work fabrication and installation, stone protection, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical services, including a pneumatically operated spillway gate. This work would enable the diversion structures to facilitate passage of suspended sediment and bed load downstream in a more natural manner, minimizing the need for manual clearing of these materials and deposition in downstream habitat.

Alternative pipeline routes have been identified and evaluated to determine whether they would provide the following:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-1 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• A more efficient means of pipeline replacement

• A more environmentally sound method of replacement

• More efficient access for and environmentally sound future maintenance and repair of the pipeline

• More environmentally sound methods of operation

• Equally or more efficient transport of raw water from the diversions to the Coast Pump Station (CPS)

The City of Santa Cruz maintains an 8- to 10-foot right-of-way (ROW) along the existing pipeline route in most areas. However, some portions of the pipeline are associated with ROWs that are defined in different terms, such as what size diameter pipe can be placed in the area and little other criteria. In addition, portions of the pipeline are adjacent to existing structures (such as private yards or residences) and access roads. The 16-mile NCS includes:

• Approximately 5.5 miles of the system located within developed areas (mountain residential and City of Santa Cruz)

• Approximately 1.5 miles of the system extending beneath City surface streets from the Meder Street extension to High Street

• Approximately 4 miles of the system running along Highway 1 from Laguna Creek on the west to Wilder Ranch State Park entrance on the east (Jones & Stokes 2000)

• The remaining 12.5 miles of the system running through undeveloped areas (Coast Dairies Property, Wilder Ranch State Park, and Moore Creek Preserve)

2.3 Project Location

The proposed Project consists of numerous facilities located throughout the North Coast Watershed. Most of the existing and proposed pipeline route passes through lands that have historically been used for ranching, mining, and agriculture, and more recently they support rural residential use. A relatively small portion of the project is located within the City of Santa Cruz and passes through urban residential and commercial areas before reaching the CPS. SCWD’s service area includes the University of California at Santa Cruz (UC Santa Cruz), unincorporated areas such as Pasatiempo and Carbonera to the north, the Live Oak area to the east, and several domestic and agricultural areas along Highway 1 to the west of the City.

The watersheds of the Santa Cruz County coast originate in the Santa Cruz Mountains, which are located near the Pacific Ocean. As such, the streams of this area typically drain small watersheds and, because of their relatively short length, are referred to as “short-run streams” (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). The NCS crosses 13 defined watersheds, including from west to east, Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Reggiardo Creek, Laguna Creek, Majors Creek, Gordola Creek, Baldwin Creek, Lombardi Gulch, Old Dairy Gulch, Wilder Creek, Moore Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, and Pogonip Creek.

Additionally, the NCS passes through lands held by both public and private entities. The largest landowners are the Trust for Public Land (TPL), which owns and manages the Coast Dairies Property

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-2 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

(approximately 7,000 acres), and California State Parks, which own and manage the 6,000-acre Wilder Ranch State Park. The existing pipeline alignment also passes through several private properties in the upper portions of the Laguna Creek watershed and within the City of Santa Cruz. All proposed Project facilities are within the County of Santa Cruz. Precise descriptions and locations of all existing project facilities are provided in Section 2.6.1.

2.4 Project Background

The SCWD has operated and maintained the 16-mile long NCS since the 1880s. The North Coast Diversion water rights were acquired by the City prior to 1914, and enable the City to divert flow year round. The system relies entirely on rainfall runoff and emergent groundwater to furnish approximately 30 percent of SCWD’s overall water production (City of Santa Cruz 1994).

The diversion structures on its three coastal streams range in age from approximately 80 years to over 120 years. Over half of the approximately 16 miles of conveyance pipeline is over 40 years old. Over the past several years, the City has been forced to make emergency repairs on many sections of the pipeline.

In July 1990, the Santa Cruz City Council adopted the final draft of the Water Master Plan that studied water demand, supply, quality, treatment, and distribution through 2005. In addition to the Water Master Plan, a State-mandated Urban Water Management Plan sets forth City policies relating to conservation and efficient use of water supplies (City of Santa Cruz 1994).

In 2000, the City published an Alternative Water Supply Study (Carollo 2000) that evaluated water demand, supply, quality, treatment and distribution system alternatives intended to alleviate potentially significant water shortages under multiple dry-year conditions. The NCS was identified as a key resource in the City’s strategy to weather drought conditions. In addition, the system is prized for its high-quality and low-cost water.

In 2002, the City completed an IS that focused on proposed modifications to the current operation and maintenance of the existing pipeline through implementation of the Santa Cruz North Coast System Repair Project. The purpose of the IS was to determine whether there were significant environmental affects associated with construction activities for the repair project and future operation of the NCS.

2.4.1 System Limitations The diversion and pipeline facilities have historically provided adequate service for the City, but have been increasingly prone to failure in recent years (pipelines) and increased routine maintenance (pipelines and diversion structures).

Limitations of the existing pipeline system include:

• Age/Condition – The age of the pipelines has resulted in deterioration of pipe materials, resulting in increased frequency of leaks and need of emergency repairs.

Limitations of the existing diversion structures include:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-3 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• Sediment Accumulation – The original design of the diversion structures does not provide sufficient sediment flushing/transport capabilities, resulting in a buildup of rock, sand, and debris.

• Lack of Remote Operating and Monitoring Capability – The original design and current configuration of the diversion structures does not provide remote operation and monitoring capability at the Reggiardo, Laguna, and Majors Diversions.

• Improper Sizing of Inlet Screens – Majors and Laguna creeks support native populations of rainbow trout. The intake screens at these creeks are too large to prevent juvenile fish entrainment.

2.5 Project Objectives

The overall goal of the proposed Project is to confirm the most viable repair alternatives for the NCS. The SCWD is proposing to implement a long-term replacement and repair program for the North Coast pipelines and diversions. The program would be implemented over a period of 15 to 20 years. Much of the proposed pipeline replacement as well as the proposed repair work to the diversion facilities would not require substantial changes in O&M from baseline activities conducted for the existing pipeline. Additionally, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in system capacity.

2.5.1 Project Objectives for Diversion Structures Objectives of the repair evaluation for diversion structures are to determine:

• Whether the Laguna Creek, Reggiardo Creek, and Majors Creek diversions are structurally sound

• Whether modifications could be made to improve the efficiency and reduce the potential environmental impacts associated with the City’s operation of the diversion structures

Historically, the City has needed to dredge the Laguna diversion water impoundment periodically to remove large rocks and gravel that accumulate behind the diversion structure. Additionally, the City has operated the Majors Creek diversion to flush sand from the upper watershed through the diversion structure.

As part of the proposed Project, a conceptual design has been developed for the Laguna and Majors diversions to improve the passage of sediment, gravel, and cobble at both facilities. The design also includes the automation of diversion operations so that access to the structures during wet weather is not a limiting factor in proper facility operation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-4 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

This conceptual design includes a pneumatically-operated spillway gate that would be installed in the top of the existing diversion dams immediately adjacent to the water intakes. The gate would be lowered during high flow events when the turbidity in the creek water is greater than 20 nephelometric turbidity units (ntu) in order to pass sediment and gravel-laden water. This would facilitate passage of the suspended sediment and bed load downstream and potentially out to the ocean in a more natural manner during peak flow events. Additionally, the automated spillway gate would result in a more efficient operation, over the current manual method that requires City personnel to physically go to the site to raise and lower the gate. The conceptual design also includes improved intake screens to protect fish and other aquatic organisms.

2.5.2 Project Objectives for Pipeline Facilities • Improving System Reliability – System reliability can only be improved by minimizing leakage and the potential for a system shutdown due to pipe failure. Replacement of old existing pipelines and supporting infrastructure would meet this objective.

• Maintaining System Capacity – The NCS is an integral part of the City’s overall water supply system. Therefore, the repair project would provide renewed infrastructure to enable continued supply for the future. Repair upgrades of the NCS (e.g., pipeline replacement, diversion structure modifications, etc.) would be designed to maintain the existing system capacity in order to meet this objective.

• Improving System Operation – During the summer months, water diversions are constrained by the availability of water flow in the creeks. In the winter months, diversions are based on water quality and the capacity of the pipelines. System operation could be improved with the repair of several system elements including: the addition of remote operation and monitoring capability at the diversion structures; modification of the diversion structures to improve flow management and sediment removal and transport from diversion impoundments; and pipeline re-routing or alternative alignments to avoid inaccessible terrain.

• Minimizing Environmental Impact – Potential environmental impacts from the repair project include short-term construction-related effects and long-term impacts related to ongoing operation and routine maintenance of the diversion structures and pipelines. The potential short- and long-term impacts can be minimized by avoiding construction/operation in sensitive habitat areas wherever possible.

New pipeline alignments may include both minor and major re-routing to relocate portions of the pipeline to a more favorable location with respect to construction and/or long-term operation and maintenance. Minor re-routing could include a shift in the alignment by 10 to 20 feet to avoid riparian habitat. New pipeline alignments may also include a complete re-routing of the pipeline to avoid construction in canyon areas or major areas of sensitive habitat. New pipeline facilities could include pump stations as necessary to support the transport of water over steep elevations that may occur along the proposed alternate pipeline alignments.

2.6 Project Characteristics

The proposed Project would evaluate options for replacing or repairing the aging gravity-fed pipeline, as well as repairing the water diversion structures to ensure safe, efficient, and reliable operation of the NCS. Where possible, the proposed Project also would be used to develop alignments that

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-5 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives improve ROW access and avoid sensitive habitats so that leaks may be detected more quickly and access for repairs improved, thus minimizing environmental impacts.

• Replacement of the pipelines that make up the NCS; and

• Repair of the diversion structures that support the NCS.

2.6.1 Description of Existing Facilities Much of the proposed Project would take place in existing facility locations, and incorporate similar O&M procedures. Therefore, present pipeline and diversion facilities are included in this Program EIR.

There are four water sources that supply water to the NCS:

• Liddell Spring on the East Branch of Liddell Creek

• Laguna Creek Diversion

• Reggiardo Creek Diversion

• Majors Creek Diversion

These water sources are passively diverted into the various pipeline reaches that comprise the NCS. These pipeline reaches include Liddell, Reggiardo (the shortest reach), Laguna (LAG), Laguna/Liddell (LAG/LID), and Majors (MAJ). These pipelines carry the water down to the main NCP Reach that runs along Highway 1 to the City of Santa Cruz’s CPS on River Street (Figure 2-1). The raw water is then pumped from the CPS across the San Lorenzo River to the Graham Hill Road Water Treatment Plant.

The diversion facilities and pipelines, as well as their operation are described in greater detail in the following subsections.

2.6.2 Existing Diversion Facilities

2.6.2.1 Liddell Spring

The City diversion on Liddell Creek is located at a springbox on a tributary to the East Branch of Liddell Creek near its headwaters, approximately 2.5 miles upstream from the mouth of Liddell Creek. The concrete spring box is located immediately adjacent to a dirt access road that is accessible through the RMC Pacific Materials Quarry. The marble/limestone quarry is immediately above the spring. The spring box diverts flow directly into the 16-inch diameter Liddell pipeline. The flow into the pipeline is controlled by an in-line slide gate valve. The pipeline transports the water to the southeast out of the East Branch of Liddell Creek watershed, through the Yellow Bank Creek

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-6 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives watershed, to connect with the Laguna pipeline at Y Creek. On average the spring produces approximately 1 million gallons per day with a maximum diversion capacity of 2.47 cfs (Fiske 2003)

The City typically ramps down the Liddell diversion slide gate valve during storm events to prevent the entrainment of sediment that can fill the spring box. Most often, the valve is cracked to allow sediment to pass through without accumulating in the spring box and to allow transport of the peak of the hydrograph (Berry pers. comm. 2004). At times, the spring box fills and spills sediment across the roadway into the ravine and the East Branch of Liddell Creek. In these instances, the sediment must be removed from the spring box before diversions can resume.

2.6.2.2 Reggiardo Diversion

The City operates a surface water diversion structure on Reggiardo Creek. The headwaters of Reggiardo Creek are created by a spring, where water flows above the surface for a short distance and extends below ground. A small portion of the water flow resurfaces approximately 1,000 feet upstream of a small concrete dam (approximately 8 feet high). Water in Reggiardo Creek collects behind the small dam, creating a small pond in the channel. Water from the pond is delivered via an 8-inch riveted steel pipeline (approximately 800 feet long) into the diversion impoundment on Laguna Creek (ENTRIX 1997). The pipeline is buried for most of its length, but is exposed in a number of locations immediately downstream of the diversion, and where it discharges into the Laguna diversion impoundment. The City owns the property immediately around the Reggiardo Creek pond; the surrounding property is privately owned. At this time, the Reggiardo diversion impoundment and intake are completely full of cobble and gravel.

2.6.2.3 Laguna Diversion

The Laguna diversion structure is located on Laguna Creek approximately 0.1 mile upstream of the confluence of Laguna with Reggiardo creeks and approximately 4.0 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. The diversion structure spans the entire width of Laguna Creek and consists of a concrete and limestone wall; a reinforced concrete intake structure and debris screen; two debris/sediment control bypasses with pneumatically-operated gate valves; a pneumatically-operated diversion control valve and propeller-type flowmeter; approximately 20,000 feet of 14-inch diameter steel transmission piping; and an existing control building (Wood Rogers 2002). The maximum diversion rate is 6.3 cfs (Fiske 2003)

2.6.2.4 Majors Diversion

The Majors Diversion is located on Majors Creek approximately 2.2 miles upstream of the Pacific Ocean. The facility spans the width of Majors Creek and consists of a reinforced concrete wall and screened intake structure; two debris/sediment control bypasses with pneumatically-operated gate valves; a pneumatically-operated diversion control valve and propeller-type flowmeter; and an existing control facility. Electricity at this facility is provided by a propane-powered generator and batteries. The maximum diversion rate is reported to be approximately 2.1 cfs (Fiske 2003). The capacity of the Majors Creek diversion is limited by the backpressure in the NCP created by the flow from the Laguna and Liddell diversions.

For Majors and Laguna diversions, the diversions are shut down during high flows with turbid water to prevent the entrainment of sediment into the pipeline. Water not diverted flows over the dam and continues downstream. When the storm flow begins to recede, the drain valves in the dam are opened

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-7 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives to flush the sediment downstream. Once the sediment has moved out or the level of flow is too low to move the sediment downstream, the drain valves are closed. Diversions are resumed when turbidity levels fall below 25 NTU.

2.6.3 Existing Diversion Operations and Maintenance Activities

2.6.3.1 Water Diversions

The purpose of the NCS is to divert flow from the spring and creeks to the pipeline for delivery to the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant. Under current operations, when turbidity levels are too high or when a substantial storm event is expected to occur, City personnel may have to travel to the diversion structures and close the diversion intake slide gates. Following the storm event, City personnel have to travel back to the diversion structure to open the intake slide gates, provided turbidity levels are within acceptable limits. Often, the City is constrained by poor road access during and after major storm events.

2.6.3.2 Intake Screens

Both the Laguna and Majors Creek Diversion structures passively divert water through 1/2-inch and 5/32-inch woven wire mesh (intake screens), respectively. These screens act to keep debris from entering the pipeline and are periodically cleaned of debris during site visits to the diversions.

2.6.3.3 Bypass Flow

The North Coast Diversion water rights are pre-1914 water rights that do not include limits on the amount of water diverted. As such, the City diverts surface flow year-round based on water quality and pipeline capacity. The capacity of Laguna and Majors diversions are 6.3 cubic feet per second (cfs), and 2.1 cfs, respectively. During the winter months, the entire flow is often bypassed due to high turbidity. During the summer months, at times the City diverts the entire stream flow.

2.6.3.4 Sediment Management

During substantial storm runoff events, the City stops the diversion of surface in the Laguna and Majors diversion dams. The flow is then allowed to spill over the diversion dams and proceed downstream. Although the water flow is proceeding downstream, all of the bedload (consisting primarily of rocks and pebbles) and some portion of the suspended sediment is deposited in the diversion impoundments. When feasible, the City opens the flow release valves at the diversion structure to allow the accumulated sediment to flow downstream. The valves are not opened until receding flows of the storm event to prevent the release valves from being clogged with large woody debris or boulders. When the sediment has moved downstream or the level of flow is too low to move the sediment downstream, the drain valves are closed. Diversions are resumed when turbidity levels fall below 25 NTU. However, during storm events, timely access needed to administer operational adjustments to prevent sediment deposition is often compromised.

The City also operates a surface water diversion on Reggiardo Creek. Water in Reggiardo Creek collects behind a small concrete dam, creating a small pond in the channel. Water from the pond is then delivered, via a steel pipeline, into the diversion pond on Laguna Creek. In the past, this diversion area has been completely filled with cobble, gravel, and sand. The diversion structure and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-8 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives intake box are not equipped with a flow or sediment bypass; therefore, sediment accumulates, and the debris has to be excavated periodically to function properly.

2.6.3.5 Equipment and Pump Maintenance

Existing facilities at the Laguna and Majors diversions are limited to two pneumatically operated bypass flow relief valves located in the diversion dam face and adjacent to the diversion intake. The valves are lubricated and checked periodically, and appropriate precautions are taken to prevent lubricant from getting into the creek.

2.6.4 Existing Pipeline Facilities

2.6.4.1 Liddell Reach Pipeline (Reach 1)

The Liddell pipeline (LID) is approximately 10,000 feet long, and is constructed of 10-inch welded or riveted steel pipe. The pipeline drops in elevation from approximately 600 feet mean sea level (msl) to 33 msl upon reaching the Laguna pipeline at Y Creek. Immediately downstream of the Liddell Spring, the aboveground pipeline follows the existing ROW through redwood forest habitat and extends down along the ridgeline to the East Branch of Liddell Creek.

The pipeline (still aboveground) crosses Liddell stream (LID-01) and continues through the riparian area extending south to Yellow Bank Creek watershed. The pipeline crosses Yellow Bank Creek (LID-02) and continues through Rattle Snake Canyon where it crosses a small intermittent stream (LID-03, suspended). The buried pipeline crosses the divide into the Y Creek watershed, a tributary to Laguna Creek. The pipeline is buried beneath or adjacent to the dirt road along Y Creek until it crosses the creek (suspended) at LID-04 (pipeline distance [p.d.] 9,300 feet). The LID pipeline intersects the LAG pipeline at the Y located within the riparian corridor on the east-side of Y Creek.

2.6.4.2 Laguna/Liddell Reach Pipeline (Reach 2)

The 12-inch steel Laguna/Liddell pipeline (LAG/LID) is approximately 5,900 feet long. It originates at the Y on the east-side of Y Creek at an elevation of approximately 330 feet msl and drops to an elevation of 30 feet msl where it connects with the NCP.

Downstream of the Y, the pipeline crosses Y Creek on a narrow footbridge (LAG-04). The buried pipeline crosses an open meadow and enters the lower reach of the Laguna Creek riparian corridor. The existing route parallels the creek, and crosses Laguna Creek at two locations, one of which is a substantial span crossing in a limited access area with steep banks (LAG/LID-01). Throughout this reach, the pipeline is below ground except at the stream crossings.

2.6.4.3 Laguna Reach Pipeline (Reach 3)

The LAG pipeline is approximately 13,000 feet in length. The 12-inch steel pipeline originates at an elevation of approximately 640 feet msl and intersects the LID pipeline at the Y at an elevation of approximately 330 feet msl. The existing pipeline follows Smith Grade Road for approximately 1,300 feet and then enters Laguna Creek Canyon, a secondary growth redwood forested habitat that is relatively undisturbed in recent decades. The canyon includes several known slide areas as indicated by the wash out areas along the access road. The existing route parallels the creek along a narrow access road, and crosses the creek in three locations, one of which is a substantial gorge crossing in a

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-9 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives particularly steep area of the canyon (LAG-03) (Figure 9-4). The remaining 5,500 feet of the pipeline is located down gradient of the dirt access road on the west side of Laguna Creek to the Y. This portion of the pipeline passes through an oak woodland and former grazing lands.

2.6.4.4 Majors Reach Pipeline (Reach 4)

The 12-inch pipeline consists of segments of high-density polyethylene (HDPE), welded steel, and riveted steel. The pipeline starts at an elevation of approximately 400 feet msl, is approximately 11,000 feet long, and connects to the NCS at an elevation of approximately 95 feet msl. Downstream of the diversion the existing alignment runs adjacent to Majors Creek through an area of secondary growth redwood forested habitat (p.d. 0 to 2,000 feet). This portion of pipeline lies within the riparian corridor. From p.d. 2,000 feet to 8,000 feet, the pipeline climbs gradually, following the contour of the steep eastern slope of the canyon. The pipeline elevation fluctuates between approximately 290 and 400 feet msl. In most areas, the aboveground pipeline parallels the dirt access road running approximately 100 feet downgradient from the road. At p.d. 8,200 feet, the pipeline enters a 500-foot- long boring through the end of the ridge and emerges onto the second-tier marine terrace at p.d. 8,700 feet (Figure 9-4). The buried pipeline then drops rapidly in elevation as it crosses the marine terrace grasslands and descends to Highway 1 where it connects with the NCP.

Access to the pipeline from the diversion to p.d. 8,200 feet is limited to foot travel. Much of this area is very difficult to traverse due to large trees, a heavy understory, and steep side slopes. The bench cuts for the pipeline are often barely more than the width of the pipe.

2.6.4.5 North Coast Reach Pipeline (Reach 5)

The NCP consists of 18- to 24-inch welded steel pipe that runs from Laguna Creek to the CPS, a total of approximately 44,250 feet. The pipeline starts at an approximate elevation of 30 feet msl and ends at a similar elevation at the CPS adjacent to the San Lorenzo. The peak elevation on the NCP occurs at approximately 230 feet msl at approximately p.d. 130 feet.

The existing NCS begins at the intersection of Laguna Creek and runs along Highway 1 on the west through Wilder Ranch State Park to the east. There, it extends northeast up through the Wilder Creek drainage, the privately owned Younger Field property outside City limits, and the City-owned 246- acre Moore Creek Preserve where the route then enters a well-established residential neighborhood (on Meder Street). In the City, the existing route traverses in/through several residential lots, and possibly lies immediately adjacent to, or under, existing homes. Outside of the urban areas, the existing alignment crosses 13 streams, both perennial and intermittent and traverses through predominantly grassland, and agricultural and disturbed areas, with some riparian habitat at the stream crossings.

2.6.5 Existing Pipeline Operations and Maintenance Activities Operations and maintenance on the NCS consists of three activities: vegetation control, monitoring, and emergency response and repair. Under the proposed Project, O&M activities are not expected to change significantly. Current O&M activities are described in detail below.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-10 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.6.5.1 Vegetation Maintenance

Where possible, the City maintains an 8-foot-wide access above the pipeline ROW. This accessway is mowed periodically to provide easy access and facilitate visual inspections for leaks. Under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that vegetation would be controlled using a riding mower where feasible. Where slopes are too steep, or the ROW is physically too narrow to mow, vegetation would be thinned or controlled using hand tools. Because mowing may not be practical in shrub/scrub and forested areas, it is anticipated that the understory would be pruned with hand tools. Under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that vegetation control would be conducted annually in most areas and potentially twice per year in selected areas of rapid vegetation growth, as is done currently.

2.6.5.2 Pipeline Monitoring

City Water Department employees periodically monitor the pipeline system for leaks. Monitoring is conducted on foot or by vehicle where possible. This activity has the potential over time to compact soils and trample vegetation. Under the proposed Project, this activity would not differ from existing monitoring activities.

2.6.5.3 Emergency Response Activities and Repairs

The City’s past experience with substantial pipeline leaks and breaks has shown that environmental impacts are typically associated with both the forceful release of water onto erodible soil formations (e.g., Santa Margarita formation) and the need for repair equipment to access potentially sensitive habitats. Under the proposed Project, the repair project would be used (where possible) to develop alignments that improve ROW access and visibility so that leaks may be more readily detected and access for repairs improved. Although an aboveground pipeline offers easier monitoring, leak detection, and repairs, belowground pipeline is less intrusive on the landscape and is less susceptible to environmental damage, vandalism, and weathering. Therefore, to the extent possible, the pipeline would be installed below ground.

2.6.5.4 Pipe Fabrication

The pipeline would be replaced with either HDPE pipe or welded steel pipe. HDPE pipe is corrosion- resistant, a non-conductor, not effected by electrolysis, and not susceptible to alkaline or acid soil conditions. The ability of HDPE to bend without breaking allows the joints to compensate for minor/major earth movement. HDPE pipe comes in various lengths, is lightweight, and is therefore more easily installed on steep slopes and where access is difficult. Steel pipe is the preferred material for use in seismic areas. The pipe wall thickness can be increased to accept very high pipe pressures and also can be placed in trenches without a great deal of deflection (deflection refers to the constraint on the pipe, the lining, coating, and joints due to the weight of soil on the pipe). Typically, steel pipes in diameters appropriate for the proposed Project come in lengths of 20 feet.

2.6.5.5 Access Agreements and Easements

Easements currently exist along the entire route of the existing pipeline; however, the size of the easement and access rights vary along the route. For construction of the pipeline in an alternative alignment, new easements or access agreements would be required. Long-term agreements or easements would be necessary to provide ongoing access for maintenance of the pipeline and the ROW, pipeline repairs, and other activities.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-11 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.7 Project Alternatives

Because this proposed Project would be implemented over a period of 15- to 20- years, work would be conducted on a reach by reach basis. This work would depend on the availability of funds for permitting and construction, and the time required to obtain necessary permits and easements. The proposed Project could incorporate any of the existing or alternative alignments and repair measures described below. As a result, all of the potential alignments (current and alternative) are analyzed in this PEIR.

Various stream crossing locations throughout the Project area are also included in each of the reach descriptions below and are referred to as LID-02 (Liddell Stream Crossing #2), LAG-03 (Laguna Stream Crossing #3), etc. These stream crossings are illustrated in Figures 9-4 through 9-6.

2.7.1 Proposed Diversion Alternatives

2.7.1.1 Reggiardo Diversion—Repair Alternative

Removal of some portion of the accumulated gravel and cobble and cleaning of the diversion intake may be appropriate to improve reliability and maintain diversion performance. The pipeline that delivers water from the Reggiardo Diversion to the Laguna Diversion would eventually need to be replaced. In addition, the intake box associated with this diversion may be damaged and may require replacement when the excavation for the pipeline replacement is conducted. These actions would occur under planned maintenance activities.

2.7.1.2 Laguna and Majors Diversions—Repair Alternative

Most construction and repair work at the Laguna and Majors diversions would occur within the stream channels. The construction window would directly coincide with SCWD’s water diversion season and work on these two diversions would be done at separate times. Special attention would be given to construction timing and environmental mitigation measures. Because Streambed Alteration Agreements require a construction period from July 1 to October 15, the City would need to coordinate construction methods that would accommodate the existing diversion operations.

Design and preparation of final construction plans and specifications for repair work to the diversion structures would require approximately 1 to 2 months once the design and operational criteria are finalized and topographic data are available. Attaining the spillway gate components, screen panels, and electronic controls for the diversion structures would require an additional 3 months. Total construction/repair time for the two structures would require approximately 6 to 8 weeks, assuming construction is performed concurrently. Total implementation time of the proposed modifications to both diversion structures would require approximately 4 to 5 months, upon award of work to completion. Construction timing could vary depending on the time of year construction begins.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-12 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

Implementation of the proposed modifications would require a Streambed Alteration Agreement (1601 Permit) from CDFG.

Construction of the diversion modifications at the Laguna and Majors Diversions would involve a cofferdam and a temporary bypass system, dewatering, earthwork, reinforced concrete demolition and construction, metal work fabrication and installation, stone protection, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical services. Increased traffic to and from the project areas would be minimal. Estimated total concrete placement would not exceed more than 50 yards per site and would be completed in two installments per site. Earthwork involving borrow or spoil operations would be confined to the localized area and habitat disturbance would be no greater than that which would be typically administered during annual maintenance activities.

2.7.2 Proposed Diversion Operations and Maintenance Activities O&M on the diversion structures currently involves five activities: water diversion, intake screens, bypass flow, sediment management, and equipment and pump maintenance. Under the proposed Project, these O&M activities are not expected to vary significantly.

2.7.2.1 Water Diversions

Under the proposed Project, the diversion structures would be modified, so that the opening and closing of the slide gate would be automated. In addition, the gates would be automatically triggered by readings from a turbidity meter located in the diversion intake or based on a flow meter upstream of the diversion structure.

2.7.2.2 Intake Screens

Both the Laguna and Majors Creek Diversion structures passively divert water through 1/2-inch and 5/32-inch woven wire mesh intake screens. Under the proposed Project, modifications to the diversion structures would replace the intake screens with a self-cleaning screen system that meets CDFG specifications for protection of fish and other aquatic organisms.

2.7.2.3 Bypass Flow Management

No changes to bypass flow would occur under the proposed Project.

2.7.2.4 Sediment Management

Under the proposed Project, the modified Laguna and Majors diversion structures would have an automatically operated spillway gate to changes in flow and turbidity at the diversion. This gate would be programmed to drop when flows start to rise and turbidity exceeds 25 NTU. The lowered gate would allow the entire flow, including the suspended sediment and bedload, to pass over the diversion dam and proceed downstream to the ocean during the peak flow event. The gate would then be re-opened automatically when the turbidity levels dropped below 25 NTU. As the flow drops, the pneumatic gate would be raised to maintain flow into the diversion intake and decrease the flow passing the diversion.

It is anticipated that this process would help flush much of the sediment downstream to the ocean, rather than allowing it to accumulate behind the diversion dam or in downstream pools.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-13 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

Under the proposed Project, no structural changes to the Reggiardo diversion structure or intake are proposed. O&M activities at the diversion would include the excavation of sediment, gravel, and cobble from behind the diversion dam to clear the diversion intake box.

2.7.2.5 Equipment and Pump Maintenance

Under the proposed Project, if the diversion modifications are implemented and/or the pipeline pump station alternatives are implemented, then frequent maintenance (monthly) of the pumps and gate machinery (two times per year) would be required. As under current conditions, appropriate precautions would be taken to prevent the introduction of lubricants and cleaning solvents from entering the environment.

2.7.3 Proposed Pipeline Alternatives Details pertaining to pipeline alternatives for the various reaches are discussed below. As discussed previously, existing operations and maintenance on the NCS consists of three activities: vegetation control, monitoring, and emergency response and repair. Under the proposed Project, O&M activities are not expected to change significantly from current O&M activities. Current O&M activities are described above in Section 2.6.5.

2.7.3.1 Liddell Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

• The Liddell Reach Existing Alignment would replace the existing riveted and welded steel pipeline with 10- to 12-inch inside diameter (id) HDPE pipe within the ROW with minor deviations as follows.

• The pipeline would be replaced subsurface from the spring box to the downgradient side of the dirt access road.

• The pipeline would be placed above ground along the south-facing slope of the ravine emerging onto the ridgeline, then running steeply down the ridgeline to the canyon bottom on the north side of the East Fork of Liddell Creek (EFLC).

• The pipeline would be located above ground on the dirt road adjacent to EFLC rather than in the creek bed or riparian corridor to reduce stream crossings. This deviation from the ROW would require modification of the existing easement or additional/new easement in some locations.

• The pipeline would cross EFLC (LID-01) below ground via trenching or directional drilling, or attached to the existing bridge.

• The pipeline would be placed above or below ground adjacent to or in the existing roadbed on the slope from Liddell Creek to the crossing at the Yellow Bank. The existing pipeline in this segment runs through the redwood forest on the downgradient side of the access road to the summit and then runs in the riparian drainage on the west-side of the access road down to the crossing of the Yellow Bank Creek. To reduce the need for timber removal on the north slope of the EFLC and reduce work in riparian habitat on the south slope down to Yellow Bank Creek, modification of the existing easement or additional/new easement may be required in some locations.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-14 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• Trenching or directional drilling would be used to place the pipeline beneath Yellow Bank Creek (LID-02).

• The pipeline would be placed in the ROW in or adjacent to the existing access road from Yellow Bank Creek to Rattlesnake Canyon (stay with road as long as possible).

• The pipeline would be suspended across the unnamed stream crossing at Rattlesnake Canyon (LID-03).

• The pipeline would run below ground through or upgradient from a potential wetland in Rattlesnake Canyon (LID-03).

• The pipeline would be directionally drilled through the ridge between Rattlesnake Canyon and the access road or would be replaced below grade following the lay of the land as currently exists.

• The pipeline would be placed above ground adjacent to, or below grade, in the dirt access road from high point to the Y. The Y should be moved from the east side of the Y Creek to the west side to eliminate the stream crossing that currently exists (LID-04) upstream of the Y where the pipeline leaves the access road and crosses diagonally through the creek bed. This would require modification of the existing easement or additional/new easement.

The construction would likely be supported by several potential staging areas located near the quarry settling ponds, Rattlesnake Canyon, and near the Y. Staging areas near the Y would be located on the eastern side of Y Creek, away from potential cultural resource areas. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing dirt roads.

2.7.3.2 Liddell Reach – Alternate Alignment

The proposed alternate alignment for the Liddell Reach addresses a short segment of the pipeline from the spring box to the point where the pipeline enters the canyon bottom of the EFLC (p.d. 1,522 feet). From this point (p.d. 1,522 feet) to the Y, this alternative is identical to the proposed Existing Alignment Alternative described above. This alternative would require additional new easement to implement.

• The first segment of pipeline would be placed below ground or adjacent to the existing dirt access road from the spring box to the first sharp bend in the access road.

• The pipeline would be placed above ground running down the steep slope from the road to the quarry settling basin area and then exit to the EFLC at the basin discharge point. The pipeline may be placed below ground as needed at road crossings near the settling ponds.

• The pipeline would reconnect with the existing alignment at the entry point to the canyon bottom of the EFLC.

The construction in this area would likely be supported by the staging area at the quarry. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing dirt roads.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-15 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.7.3.3 Reggiardo Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

The proposed Reggiardo Reach Existing Alignment would replace the existing riveted steel, 8-inch pipeline with 8-inch (id) HDPE pipe along the existing alignment with no deviations from the existing ROW.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground where feasible from the diversion intake to Smith Grade Road.

• The pipeline would cross beneath Smith Grade Road and would be placed below ground over the ridge east of Smith Grade Road.

• The pipeline would be placed above ground to discharge to the Laguna Diversion pond as currently configured.

The construction in this area would most likely be supported by the staging located at the Laguna diversion. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing dirt roads.

2.7.3.4 Laguna Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

The proposed Laguna Reach Existing Alignment would replace the existing riveted and welded steel pipeline with 12- to 16-inch (id) HDPE pipe along the existing alignment with no significant deviations from the existing ROW.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground from the diversion flume to Smith Grade Road.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground adjacent to or in (depending on existing easement) Smith Grade Road from the diversion access road to the Laguna Creek access road (1,600 feet). The pipeline would pass under Smith Grade Road at some point along this segment.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in or adjacent to the existing dirt access road along the south side of Laguna Creek.

• At the first Laguna Creek crossing (LAG-01), the pipeline runs below the creek bed. The pipeline would be replaced above the creek or attached to the existing bridge. It has been assumed that access to this location is not sufficient for directional drilling equipment.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in or adjacent to the dirt access road on the north side of the creek between LAG-01 and LAG-02.

• At LAG-02 the pipeline runs beneath the creek bed and an old diversion structure. The pipeline would be suspended above the creek or attached to the existing bridge. It is assumed that because of limited access and the presence of the concrete diversion structure, directional drilling is not feasible at this crossing.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in or adjacent to the dirt access road between LAG- 02 and LAG-03 along the south bank of the creek. Elevations range from 5 to 50 feet above the creek bed.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-16 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• At LAG-03 the below ground pipeline drops down a steep bank from an elevation 50 feet above the creek bed to a footbridge that spans the creek approximately 20 feet above the creek bed. The below ground pipeline then rises up the north bank a distance greater than 300 feet to the dirt access road. The pipeline would be replaced in a similar manner.

• The pipeline would be replaced above or below ground on or adjacent to the existing dirt access road north of Laguna Creek to the Y. This may require modification of the existing easement or additional/new easement because the pipeline in some locations immediately north/west of gorge crossing LAG-03 is +/- 50 feet downgradient from the road.

• At LAG-04, the pipeline would be suspended across Y Creek on the existing footbridge. This footbridge may require some shoring.

Construction would most likely be supported from the staging area located at the Y and at the Laguna Diversion. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are accessible from existing dirt roads. The bridges and road in the Laguna Creek Gorge from Smith Grade Road to LAG-03 would require shoring of two bridges and slide repairs. Further, the access on the steep slope on the north side of LAG-03 is a footpath approximately 300 feet long from the dirt access road to the creek. Widening this access would require removal of some relatively mature redwood trees and undergrowth.

2.7.3.5 Laguna Reach – Alternate Alignment

The Laguna Alternate Alignment Alternative was conceived to provide a pipeline route that would run outside of the Laguna Creek canyon and reduce the number of stream crossings required. The alternative includes the installation of a pump station at the Laguna Diversion site to pump the water up to the ridgeline north of Laguna Creek, along the ridgeline and down to the Y.

• The pipeline would be routed through a pump station at or near the diversion site. The pump station would have a footprint of approximately 400 to 1600 square feet.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground from the pump station to Smith Grade Road.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in or adjacent to Smith Grade Road from the diversion access road to the residential road crossing over Laguna Creek (200 feet) along alternative alignment (LAG ALT-01). The pipeline would pass under Smith Grade Road at or near this location.

• The pipeline would most likely be attached to the existing bridge (LAG ALT-01).

• The pipeline would be placed below ground in or adjacent to the paved residential access road from the bridge to the ridge top at approximately 800-foot elevation (p.d. 1,900 feet).

• The pipeline would be placed below ground in the dirt residential access road that runs along the ridgeline through disturbed former pasture land, and then down the west end of the ridge across open grassland to reconnect with the existing alignment at p.d. 11,600 feet.

• This reach of the pipeline would be constructed using 12- to 16-inch (id) HDPE pipe.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-17 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

Construction would most likely be supported from the staging areas located at the Y and at the Laguna Diversion. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing roads with the exception of the open pasture on the western end of the ridgeline down to the Y.

2.7.3.6 Laguna/Liddell Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

• The Laguna/Liddell Existing Alignment runs from the Y through the lower Laguna watershed to the beginning of the NCP Reach at Highway 1. This reach of riveted and welded steel pipeline would be replaced with 12- to 16-inch (id) HDPE pipe. The proposed Project would replace the pipeline within the existing ROW with only minor deviations.

• The pipeline would run below ground from the relocated Y south along the access road and would depart the road on the south side and run southwest through the open fields toward a large oak tree.

• The belowground pipeline would be routed around the mature oak tree to avoid impacting the tree’s root system and pass through or under a small drainage (LAG/LID –01) west of the oak tree.

• The pipeline would pass through the riparian corridor and cross Laguna Creek (LAG/LID-02). The pipeline is currently suspended above the creek bed on pipe supports made of steel pipe. It is anticipated that due to the mature character of the riparian habitat in this area the pipeline would span the creek on supporting piers.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground through the open grasslands, and then would run adjacent to the existing paved residential access road that runs along the south side of the valley past the residence (3,700 feet).

• Trenching or directional drilling would be used to place the pipeline beneath Laguna Creek at crossing LAG/LID-03.

• The pipeline would be replaced above or below ground through the riparian corridor on the north side of the creek from LAG/LID-03 to the dirt access road and then to the beginning of the NCP Reach. A small ephemeral stream would be crossed by trenching where it is crossed by the access road.

• The Y would be moved from the eastern side of Y Creek to the western side of Y Creek where it would join with LID pipeline. The LAG pipeline would cross Y Creek (LAG-04) using the existing bridge. This bridge requires some shoring.

Construction would likely be supported from two staging areas, one at the Y and one near the Laguna Creek watershed access road, near Highway 1. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing roads.

2.7.3.7 Laguna/Liddell Reach – Alternate Alignment

The Laguna/Liddell Reach Alternative would run from the relocated Y on the western side of Y Creek along the access road to the beginning of the NCP Reach. The pipeline would be constructed entirely from 12- to 16-inch (id) HDPE. The pipeline would be trenched across a small ephemeral

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-18 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives drainage (LAG/LID ALT-01). Construction would be supported from two staging areas, one at the Y and one in the vicinity of the Laguna Creek watershed access road, near Highway 1. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All construction areas are readily accessible from existing roads.

2.7.3.8 Majors Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

The proposed Majors Creek Existing Alignment would replace the riveted and welded steel and HDPE pipeline with 12- to 16-inch (id) HDPE pipe within the existing ROW from the Majors Creek Diversion intake to the confluence with the NCP Reach near Highway 1.

• The pipeline would be replaced above ground in the existing ROW that runs adjacent to Majors Creek for a distance of approximately 2,500 feet and then climbs up through the mixed forest adjacent to or downgradient from the dirt access road on the southeast side of the watershed.

• The aboveground pipeline would run across the north-facing slope to the cliff where the canyon opens up to the coastal marine terraces. Where necessary, bench cuts and bank shoring would be conducted to support the pipeline and provide access (p.d. 0 to 8,000 feet).

• Directional drilling would be conducted from the southern side of the ridgeline on the marine terrace to the north cliff face, or the pipeline will be replaced within the existing bore.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground from the bore across the marine terrace to the NCS. At the Gordola Creek crossing (MAJ-01) located just before the junction with the NCP Reach, the pipeline would be installed by trenching, directional drilling or attached to the Highway 1 overpass.

Construction for this reach would likely be supported from a staging area located at the City-owned landfill and possibly along the Majors access road near Highway 1. Large portions of the ROW are below the access road on steep forested slopes. It is anticipated that materials and equipment would need to be lowered down the slope by winch or crane from the access road. The ROW is not directly accessible from the access road from approximately p.d. 6,500 feet to the cliff bore at 8,200 feet. Equipment and materials would need to be lowered to the ROW near the access road and then transported along the ROW to the cliff bore opening. It is anticipated that this reach may require the removal of some mature trees (e.g., redwoods, coast live oak, tan-bark oak, and bay trees) to provide ROW access for equipment and materials.

2.7.3.9 Majors Reach – Ridge Top Alignment

The Majors Ridge Top Alignment was conceived to reduce the extent of the pipeline construction on steep forested slopes, eliminate the cliff boring, provide greater ease of construction, and access for maintenance. This alternative would include the construction of a pump station at the Majors Creek Diversion that would lift the water up to the ridgeline on the southern side of the canyon. The pipeline would be above ground from the pump station to the top of the canyon ridgeline, then would transition to below ground and continue south along the top of the bluff, rejoining the existing ROW in the first tier marine terrace south of the cliff boring.

• The pipeline would run from the Majors Creek Diversion intake to a small pump station (400 to 1600 square feet) located in the immediate vicinity.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-19 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• The above ground pipeline would be run vertically up the north facing slope to the southeast to ridge top to an elevation of approximately 600 feet msl.

• Once on the ridge top the pipeline would be placed below ground and adjacent to ridgeline (e.g., along the tree line that separates the canyon from the coastal plain along the bluff).

• The belowground pipeline would reconnect with the existing ROW on the first tier of the marine terraces above Highway 1.

Construction for this reach would likely be supported from a staging area located at the City owned landfill and possibly along the Majors access road near Highway 1. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. With the exception of the pipeline segment between the pump station and the ridgeline, all of the alternative alignment is accessible via existing roads. HDPE pipeline segments would need to be assembled on the ridge top and then lowered down the north-facing slope to construct this segment.

2.7.3.10 Majors Reach– Road Alignment

This second alternate alignment alternative (Road Alignment) was conceived for two reasons. First, similar to Majors Ridge Top Alignment, this alternative would reduce the extent of pipeline construction on steep forested slopes, it would eliminate cliff borings, and it would provide for greater ease of operation and maintenance. Second, it provides an alternative to the Ridge Top Alignment and would minimize construction in the open coastal plain area.

Similar to the Ridge Top Alignment, this alternative would include construction of a new pump station at the Majors Creek Diversion. The pump station would provide operating pressure to lift the water from the diversion to the top of the ridgeline via a pipeline route that follows the existing access road. The pipeline would follow the access road route and rejoin the existing ROW in the first tier marine terrace south of the cliff boring. New electrical supply would be required to power the pump station, and would be installed adjacent to the existing access road, spanning from the main transmission lines along Highway 1 to the Majors diversion site.

Preliminary design concepts identify the pipe size as 12-inch diameter, and material types as either HDPE pipe and/or ductile iron pipe in regions as dictated by the operating pressures of the pipe.

• The pipeline would run from the Majors Creek Diversion intake to a small pump station located in the immediate vicinity of the diversion.

• The pipeline would follow the existing access road, beginning from the canyon bottom to the top of the ridge, up to an elevation of approximately 600 feet (at the point where the access road transitions from the forested portion of the canyon to the coastal plain on the ridge top). In this segment from the diversion to the ridge top (about 80 percent of the approximately 7800 feet of the pipeline reach), the pipeline could be constructed either as a buried pipe within the existing road alignment, above ground immediately adjacent to the road, or a combination of both methods. It is likely that the installation would be a combination of both methods, with approximately 25 percent buried and 75 percent above ground.

• At the transition from the forested area (in the canyon) to the coastal plain area (on the ridge top), the pipeline would be placed below ground in or adjacent to the existing dirt access road that runs

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-20 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

southwest along the marine terrace. The pipeline would reconnect to the existing ROW on the first tier of the marine terrace above Highway 1.

Similar to Majors Alternative 1, construction for this reach would likely be supported from a staging area located at the City-owned landfill and possibly along the Majors access road near Highway 1. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. All of the proposed alignment is accessible via existing roads.

2.7.3.11 NCP Reach – Existing Alignment Alternative

The existing NCP Reach’s riveted and welded steel pipeline would be replaced with 16 to 24 inch (id) welded steel pipe in most areas. The pipeline would be replaced within the existing ROW with minor deviations. The NCP Reach runs from the end of the Laguna/ Liddell Reach to the CPS. It is anticipated that the existing pipeline segment that extends from approximately High Street to the CPS would be constructed in an alternate ROW because it currently passes through numerous private properties, in very close proximity to residential homes and commercial buildings. These structures were built after the pipeline was constructed and construction in this area would result in major disruptions. Instead, this segment would follow nearby City streets and would likely be combined with other similar, previously planned projects in the area.

• The pipeline would be attached to a bridge crossing over Laguna Creek (NCP-01).

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in or adjacent to the paved southern Laguna Creek access road and then up onto the first tier marine terrace east of Highway 1.

• The pipeline would cross under Highway 1 at approximately p.d. 4,500 feet.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground in existing ROW between Highway 1 and the agricultural fields from p.d. 4,500 feet to just west of the entrance to Wilder State Park (p.d. 21,200 feet).

• At the Majors Creek Crossing (NCP-02) the pipeline would be replaced on or in the dirt overpass slope adjacent to Highway 1. Trenching or directional drilling would be used to place the pipeline beneath stream crossings at Gordola Creek (NCP-03), Baldwin Creek (NCP-04), one unnamed creek (NCP-05), Lombardi Gulch (NCP-06), and Sandy Flat Gulch (NCP-07). Trenching may be possible at NCP-05.

• The route around or through unauthorized trash dump area at Sunset Farms small-unnamed creek southeast of 4-Mile Beach Access at approximately p.d. 11,500 feet would be evaluated.

• The pipeline would pass under Highway 1 at approximately p.d. 21,200 feet.

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground through Wilder State Park with directionally drilled crossings at Peasley Gulch (NCP-08) and Wilder Creek (NCP-09).

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground through the Moore Creek Preserve, using trenching or directional drilling at NCP-10 (Moore Creek, West Fork).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-21 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• The pipeline would be replaced below ground along Meder Street. The crossing at Moore Creek (East Fork) (NCP-11) would be trenched in the road fill and the crossing at Arroyo Seco Creek (NCP-12) would be suspended.

• The pipeline would pass under Bay Street and proceed east to Cardiff Street. The pipeline would be routed north along Cardiff Place to High Street.

• The pipeline would head east along High Street to p.d. 38,000 feet at which point the existing pipeline bears north and heads northeast through a residential neighborhood.

• The pipeline would be routed directly under the neighborhood underlying numerous residential streets. The existing alignment would then go down a steep slope in Harvey West Municipal Park, through an industrial area and across Pogonip Creek (NCP-13).

Construction for this reach would be supported from three potential staging areas, one located on the Majors Creek access road, one at the City landfill, and one at the CPS. The entire proposed pipeline route would be readily accessible from existing dirt and paved roads. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck.

2.7.3.12 NCP Reach – Alternate Alignment

The NCP Reach alternate alignment was conceived to eliminate replacement of the pipeline through the residential neighborhood northeast of High Street; the steeply forested drop down to and through Harvey West Park; passage through the industrial/ commercial area north of Harvey West Park; the creek crossing at Pogonip Creek; and the railroad crossing at Golf Club Drive. This alternative alignment would continue down High Street to the dead end at Highway 1. The pipeline would then run along the bike path from High Street to Evergreen Street, then run northeast along Coral Street to River Street. From here, the pipeline would turn north and proceed north on River Street to the CPS. The NCP Alternative is identical to the NCP existing alignment from p.d. 0 to 38,000 feet. The alternative would route the belowground pipeline as follows:

• The pipeline would be placed below ground from p.d. 38,000 feet continuing the alignment down High Street to the dead end at Highway 1 (p.d. 42,500 feet).

• The pipeline would be placed below ground along the bike path from High Street to Evergreen Street.

• The pipeline would run northeast along Coral Street to River Street, turn north and proceed north on River Street to the CPS.

Construction would be supported from a potential staging area at the CPS. Equipment and materials would be dispersed by truck. It is anticipated that new easements would be required to support this alternative. The entire route would be within surface streets or paved bike paths operated and maintained by the City of Santa Cruz.

2.7.4 General Construction Actions for the Proposed Project Because construction on the NCS is subject to funding and easement acquisitions, the construction sequence has not been determined. The following construction approaches would be incorporated under the proposed Project, regardless of construction timing.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-22 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

2.7.4.1 Trenching

In most instances, new pipeline would be placed in trenches, with trench depth and width varying depending on the diameter of the pipe installed. Under the proposed Project, trench depths would range between 50 inches (for an 8-inch diameter pipe) and 60 inches (for a 16-inch diameter pipe). Trench widths would range between 20 inches (for an 8-inch diameter pipe) and 28 inches (for 16- inch diameter pipe). The trenching operation would be carried out with a chain trencher, a tracked or wheeled excavator, or backhoe.

If solid rock is encountered during the trenching process, a rock saw or other heavy equipment (e.g., excavator) would be used. Trench widths would be a minimum of 3 feet wide. This width would help to reduce the amount of soil displaced and to minimize land disturbance. Excavated material would be placed adjacent to the trench. Following placement of the pipe, the trench would be backfilled and compacted. The ground surface would be restored as closely as possible to its original condition. A diagram showing a typical trench configuration is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

2.7.4.2 Directional Drilling

Directional drilling would be performed in areas along the pipeline route where trenching is to be avoided—such as across wetlands, flowing watercourses, and driveways. Horizontal directional drilling is a method (no open trenches) of installing a new pipe through a shallow, vertical hole. Directional drill rigs are capable of directing the tip of the drill and controlling it in both horizontal and vertical directions. Directional drills can operate over distances ranging from 100 to 2,500 feet, depending on its size. A diagram showing a typical drilling configuration is illustrated in Figure 2-3.

2.7.4.3 Pipeline Suspension or Attachment

At stream crossings with deeply incised banks and/or inadequate banks for directional drilling or trenching, the pipeline may be attached to an existing bridge or overpass. In addition, a cantilever- type structure could be constructed to support the pipe above the stream channel. A typical suspended pipeline segment is shown in Figure 2-4.

2.7.4.4 Construction Schedule and Timing

Construction on the first pipeline segment will occur along High Street in 2005 in conjunction with the planned Bay Street Reservoir Transmission Main Project. By combining this first pipeline segment with the Bay Street work, the need for subsequent construction (and disruption) in the area would be eliminated.

With respect to construction timing (summer vs. winter), there would likely be some winter construction activities required along the various pipeline reaches. Such construction would likely occur in high-use recreation areas to minimize impacts on high visitor usage or minimize high fire danger. As a result, this construction would require a greater on-site presence by City staff to monitor construction activities. However, winter construction activities would be avoided in potentially sensitive habitat areas.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-23 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

The period of construction for each of the pipeline reaches would vary. In general, the construction period depends on whether the pipe is buried underground or installed above ground and the actual length of the pipeline reach. Table 2-1 shows the estimated construction time frames for each of the five pipeline reaches as well as an estimate of the amount of pipeline above and below ground under current conditions.

Overall, the construction activities would be consistent with the standard work hours of the City of Santa Cruz, which are 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM. An attempt would be made to avoid high peak traffic times whenever possible. On occasion, there may be a need for longer work hours to meet specific constructability issues that cannot otherwise be accomplished in the standard 8-hour work period (a difficult stream crossing for example). The City would closely coordinate such work with area residents, property owners/operators, and emergency service providers.

2.7.4.5 Construction Access

Access for construction is an important consideration for this project, due to the various types of terrain and habitats within the Project area. Most access would occur using ½-ton and ¾-ton trucks. For construction access on residential roads, access to private property would be maintained at all times and flag personnel would help guide access for local residents. Construction activity would be restricted to easements obtained for the construction and operation of the pipeline.

A summary of potential construction access for each reach is included below as well as whether the pipeline would be installed above or below ground.

• Liddell – General access to this reach is generally good and would likely occur via the Dirst access road from Laguna Creek to the south, and the RMC Pacific Materials Quarry (formerly RMC-Lonestar Quarry) access road to the north. There are numerous narrow stream crossings that would require special attention during construction, so that water quality is not compromised. The pipeline construction in this area would likely consist of all aboveground installation, most of it adjacent to the access road. There would be a couple of pipeline stretches along this reach (immediately downstream of the diversion structure and the crossing through the Rattlesnake Ridge area) that would not be placed immediately adjacent to the road, but would likely be above ground as well.

• Laguna/Liddell – Access downstream of the Y area varies from good to poor, with wetlands and a riparian corridor occurring downstream of the “Big Oak.” Access to this area would likely occur via the Dirst access road. While both aboveground and buried piping are options in this reach area, above ground pipe construction may be necessary due to the presence of wetlands and riparian habitat.

• Laguna – Access immediately downstream of the diversion structure (along Smith Grade Road) is good and access would occur via Smith Grade Road. Downstream, there are two small stream crossings as well as a larger stream crossing at the “Laguna Gorge.” Access in this area is extremely limited because it is heavily wooded and contains steep slopes. General access on the west-side of “Laguna Gorge” is much improved, but there are several areas of unstable soils immediately adjacent to the private residential access road. Pipeline construction would likely include a combination of aboveground and buried installation in this reach area.

• Majors – Access in this reach area varies from poor to good and would likely occur via the Majors access road off of Highway 1. Access is limited in the heavily wooded and steep canyon

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-24 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

area downstream of the diversion structure. The existing pipeline is immediately adjacent to the riparian corridor downstream of the diversion structure. Aboveground construction in the canyon portion of this area would be a viable option.

• NCP-Hwy 1 Area – Access varies from fair to good and generally improves downstream of the Majors Reach crossing. Most access to this stretch of pipeline would occur via Highway 1. While there are several narrow and wide stream/ravine crossings along this reach area, buried pipeline would be the most likely method of construction.

• NCP-In City Area – Access varies from poor to good in this area. Construction in residential and commercial areas (where the pipeline traverses adjacent to existing structures) would present the greatest access challenges. Access for this portion of the pipeline would occur via Meder Street, Cardiff Place, High Street, Coral Street, Encinal Street, and State Highway 9. Buried pipeline alignments would be likely in this area.

2.7.4.6 Heavy Equipment and Machinery

Anticipated equipment for most phases of this project would consist of tracked excavators, soil compactors, and ½-ton and ¾-ton trucks (dump and hauling). At pump station locations, additional equipment could include a mobile crane and concrete delivery trucks.

Diesel fuel is required for machinery and heavy equipment; refueling such equipment would be limited to designated areas (such as one of the staging areas) so as not to expose sensitive habitats to the possibility of a fuel spill. Additionally, best management practices (BMPs), such as a spill contingency plan and containment areas would be incorporated during the construction period. Other BMPs such as vegetable oil-based hydraulic fluids, which are standard for operating construction equipment near environmentally sensitive areas, would be used for this phase of the project.

2.7.4.7 Vehicle Trips

Vehicle trips and construction-related traffic (equipment delivery, worker traffic, and movement of equipment and workers) would increase on Highway 1, Laguna Creek Road, state park access roads off of Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, Smith Grade Road, and City streets along the pipeline route. An attempt would be made to shift delivery and work schedules away from morning and afternoon peak hours. Significant vehicle trips are not expected because no large excavations are expected for this project.

Most vehicle trips would be associated with the transport of pipe and materials (e.g., fittings) to a project site. Vehicle trips would also be required for road modifications (gravel import), likely using vehicles 10 cubic yards or smaller in size, depending on access conditions. Estimated vehicle trips for each of the pipeline reach alternatives are included in Table 2-2.

2.7.4.8 Traffic Coordination

Additionally, traffic coordination with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), county public works, local agricultural and industrial operations, and local residents and land managers (e.g., Trust for Public Lands and State Parks) would occur on an as-needed basis. Any partial street closures and traffic control would be coordinated with the City’s Public Works Department; local residents who may be affected would be informed of potential traffic controls. The City would also ensure

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-25 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives adequate emergency access at all times and would notify local emergency service providers of any road closures at least 48 hours in advance.

2.7.4.9 Workforce

Due to the scale and duration of the project, the workforce is expected to vary, depending on the reach under construction and the particular phase of work. The workforce for a typical pipeline replacement project consists of traffic control, public safety workers (e.g., flag people), pipe fitters, general laborers (shovel guys), carpenters, and light-duty equipment operators. The number of workers on-site at any given time would vary depending on the type of work being conducted, but generally would average from 15 to 20 workers.

2.7.4.10 Construction Staging Areas

Primary staging areas would likely be established at several locations along the western side of Highway 1, with smaller staging areas located adjacent to access roads in the various pipeline reach and diversion areas. General locations of potential staging areas are included on all figures in this PEIR. Most of these areas are privately owned. No staging areas would occur on the marine terraces. In general, primary staging areas would be established on relatively level ground in existing open spaces. These staging areas would not exceed a maximum size of 300 feet by 150 feet (45,000 square feet) and would be used for materials and equipment storage, preliminary pipeline fabrication, and project management. Secondary staging areas would not exceed a maximum size of 60 feet by 30 feet (18,000 square feet) and would be used for temporary storage of materials and equipment. These areas would also support daily activities related to pipeline segment fabrication.

2.8 Permit and Review Requirements

The proposed Project would require permits and review from various agencies, such as those listed below. Agencies typically have 30 days from the submittal date to review and respond to permit application materials. Specific permits that may be required for the project are discussed below.

2.8.1 County of Santa Cruz • Riparian Buffer Zone – Any pipeline alignments located on properties abutting an arroyo shall be subject to review by the Planning Director. The width of the buffer shall be determined according to the following criteria as outlined in the General Plan (Sect. 16.30.040). The buffer shall always extend fifty feet from the edge of the riparian woodland and twenty feet beyond the edge of other woody vegetation as determined by the drip-line. Once the buffer is determined, a ten-foot setback from the edge of buffer is required for all structures to allow for construction equipment and use of yard area.

• Coastal Development Permit – Santa Cruz County has a state-certified LCP, which is administered by the County Planning Department, pursuant to the California Coastal Act. Per the Santa Cruz County Code, Title 13, Section 13.20.063, the proposed repairs to the NCS would be exempt and would not require a Coast Development Permit. Activities exempt under the Code include: repairs, maintenance and minor alterations of electric utilities; generation stations; substations; fuel handling, transportation or storage facilities and equivalent facilities; and water, sewer, flood control and public works facilities which would not increase the capacity of the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-26 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

system. However, this exemption for maintenance and repair activities does not apply if the activity would include any of the following:

(1) Construction of any new roads to the site of work; or

(2) Grading exceeding 100 cubic yards; or

(3) Clearing in a sensitive habitat; or

(4) Any other clearing in excess of one acre; or

(5) Cutting of any significant tree as defined in Chapter 16.34. (Ord. 3326, 11/23/82; 3435, 8/23/83).

• Air Districts Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate – Pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act, air districts issue permits to ensure that emissions (including fugitive dust emissions) from temporary or mobile facilities or equipment, or facilities and equipment considered a stationary source (e.g., building, structure, installation) do not interfere with the attainment and maintenance of ambient air quality standards.

• Access Agreements and Easements – In order to replace the pipeline, access agreements or property easements may be required along the length of the alignment(s) selected. Such agreements would need to be developed for a number of different property owners along the existing and alternative alignments including the TPL (Coast Dairies property), California State Parks (Wilder Ranch State Park) and private property owners.

• Grading Permit – Per the County of Santa Cruz Code of Regulations, a Grading Permit, Variance Permit, and Master Site Plan would be required for those projects within the county.

2.8.2 State Regulations • CDFG Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement – Section 1601 of the Fish and Game Code requires a state or local governmental agency or public utility to notify CDFG before it begins construction that would: 1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; 2) use materials from streambed; or 3) result if the disposal or deposition of debris, waster, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake. CDFG reviews projects that may affect sensitive habitats (wetlands, riparian vegetation, etc.) and enforces the California Endangered Species Act (ESA). Species listed by the state and USFWS as endangered are covered under the federal ESA. CDFG may request species protection measures for state-listed Species of Concern as part of any given 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. Currently, all state-listed endangered species are also federally listed under the jurisdiction of USFWS.

• Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 401, 402, and 404 – The CCRWQCB is charged with regulating waste discharge, including sediment, through water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA. Requirements for water quality certification and 401 compliance vary depending upon the anticipated discharge activity and measures to avoid, reduce, or minimize water quality degradation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-27 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

• CCRWQCB Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit – This permit allows for discharges of non-stormwater that does not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard. The CCRWQCB finds that Order No. 99-08-DWQ provides adequate water quality protection and compliance monitoring. Non-stormwater discharges related to construction activities may continue to be regulated under this order while construction activities continue.

• Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – A SWPPP would need to be developed and implemented to address the specific water quality concerns for the construction period of the City of Santa Cruz’s Water Department NCS upon request of the CCRWQCB. Such reports are generally prepared in advance of any construction activity. The SWPPP would be developed to meet the following objectives:

(1) To identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity (stormwater discharges) from the construction site;

(2) To identify, construct, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the construction area during construction; and

(3) To develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction is completed (post-construction BMPs).

• CCRWQCB Riparian Buffer Zone Work Exemption – In the Basin Plan for the CCRWQCB, a filter strip consisting of undisturbed soil and riparian vegetation or its equivalent shall be maintained between significant land disturbance activities and the watercourse. A minimum width of 30 feet measured along the ground surface to the highest anticipated water line shall be maintained during construction activities.

• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) Timber Harvest Plan If the total amount of trees removed does not exceed 3 acres and the trees cut and removed would not be used for commercial purposes, a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) from the CDF would not be required for this project. However, under the California Forest Practice Rules (2002), there are certain guidelines to be followed such as no tree older than 200 years and is greater than 60 inches in diameter at stump height for Sierra or Coastal Redwoods, and 48 inches in diameter at stump height for all other tree species shall be harvested unless diseased.

2.8.3 Federal Regulations • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – The USFWS is charged with the responsibility to protect, preserve, and, if possible, enhance the nation's fish, wildlife, plant, and related ecological resources for the benefit and utilization of the people of the United States. In fulfilling this responsibility, the USFWS reviews proposals for many actions requiring federal permits including the construction of structures in navigable waters of the United States. In addition, under the ESA, the USFWS has the responsibility for administering the ESA for terrestrial and freshwater species. Local jurisdictions such as the City comply with the act under Section 10(a), which requires an incidental take permit and the preparation of an HCP.

• NOAA Fisheries (formerly National Marine Fisheries Service) –NOAA Fisheries is responsible for the management, conservation and protection of living marine resources. Using the tools provided by the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NOAA Fisheries assesses and predicts the status of fish stocks, ensures compliance with fisheries regulations and works to reduce wasteful

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-28 2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives

fishing practices. NOAA Fisheries has responsibility for the enforcement of the Endangered Species Act with respect to marine and anadromous species.

• USACE - 404 Permit – The USACE has authority over activities in wetlands and other “Waters of the US” through the Clean Water Act. Specifically, Section 404 regulates activities that involve dredging and/or filling of waters deemed as federal jurisdiction, or “Waters of the United States.” Under normal circumstances, the USACE’s definition of wetlands requires three wetland identification parameters (hydrology, soils, and vegetation) to be met; the USFWS definition requires the presence of at least two of these parameters.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 2-29

3.0 Land Use and Planning

3.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter identifies the existing land uses within the Project area and the potential land use impacts from the proposed Project. The City of Santa Cruz currently maintains an 8- to 10-foot ROW along the existing pipeline route in most areas. The area of temporary influence will include the pipeline ROW, the construction ROW (to be determined), and in ‘urban’ areas at least 500 feet on either side of the ROW.

3.2 Regulatory Considerations

3.2.1 Local Regulations County of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan – The Land Use Element is the heart of the General Plan and serves to guide the future physical development of Santa Cruz County and to address the historic, current and future distribution, location, density and intensity of all land uses in the unincorporated portion of the County. The body of land use policies and programs encompassing the General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan includes the General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan policy text and other ordinances contained in the Santa Cruz County Code. From the General Plan, four land use designations cover the areas of the project and its alternatives: Mountain Residential; Agriculture; Commercial Agriculture; and Existing Parks and Recreation.

Santa Cruz County Urban/Rural Planning - The county has established land use designations that provide general long-term guidance for development, and smaller zoning districts that provide more specific guidelines. The Project area is encompassed by the Bonny Doon Planning Zone and within the limits of the City of Santa Cruz (Santa Cruz County 1994b).

3.3 Existing Land Use and Planning Conditions

The existing pipeline traverses approximately 16 miles within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. Land use types were determined from interpretation of aerial photographs, examination of the County General Plan, and existing documents. The NCS passes through lands held by both public and private entities (Figure 3-1). Approximately 5.5 miles of the pipeline are within developed areas (mountain residential and City of Santa Cruz). The pipeline extends approximately 1.5 miles beneath City surface streets from Meder Street extension to High Street. Approximately 4 miles run along Highway 1 from Laguna Creek to Wilder Ranch State Park entrance. The remaining 12.5 miles of the system runs through undeveloped areas (Figure 3-2).

The pipeline crosses lands owned by Federal, State and county agencies and private parties. Most of the existing and proposed pipeline routes pass through lands that have historically been used for ranching, mining, agriculture, and more recently, support rural residential use. Approximately 15,964 feet (3.02 miles) of the existing pipeline are situated on Trust for Public Land-administered lands (i.e., Coast Dairies Property) that are primarily used as open space. Approximately 33,200 feet (6.29 miles) of the pipeline are located on private properties either in the upper portions of the Laguna Creek watershed or within the City of Santa Cruz (Figure 3-1). Approximately 3,000 feet (.56 mile) are located on the City of Santa Cruz land which 2,000 feet are used as grazing lands and the remaining

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-1 3.0 Land Use and Planning

1,000 feet as urban land (ENTRIX 2002a). The approximately 4 miles of pipeline that parallels Highway 1 are located on State of California land used primarily for agricultural or grazing production. The individual land uses are described in detail below and included in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-2.

3.3.1 RMC Pacific Materials Quarry RMC Pacific Materials operates a limestone quarry in the upper reaches of the West, Middle and East Branches of Liddell Creek. The eastern portion of the quarry is situated immediately above the Liddell Spring. Access to the spring and upper portions of the pipeline occur through the quarry entrance road off of Bonny Doon Road. The quarry supplies crushed limestone to a cement factory in Davenport via conveyor belt.

Construction support traffic would occur via the quarry entrance road and spring access road located on the quarry site. Placement of a small staging area may also be considered on the quarry site to provide support for construction on the upper end of the Liddell Reach. The first 1,800 feet of the pipe for Liddell Alternative 3 would be constructed on the quarry site in the access road and adjacent to the East Branch sedimentation ponds.

3.3.2 Coastal Dairies Property The Liddell and Laguna/Liddell reaches and portions of the Laguna reach, totaling approximately 17,000 feet of pipeline, exist on the TPL Coast Dairies Property (Figure 2-1). According to the 1994 Santa Cruz General Plan, the area on this property traversed by the pipeline is designated predominantly as “AG” for agricultural land and on a small scale as “R-M” for Mountain-Residential.

The 7,000 acre TPL Coast Dairies property is currently undergoing transfer to the stewardship of the federal Bureau of Land Management and California State Parks (ESA 2004). A small portion of the land is being transferred to AgriCulture, Inc. a non-profit group dedicated to the preservation and conservation of agricultural lands. The NCS components on the TPL Coast Dairies property reside exclusively with in the lands that will be managed by the BLM.

Currently the portions of the property associated with the NCS pipelines are used for unauthorized recreation (e.g., hiking) and access by permit from TPL. The Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Management and Use Plan calls for public access to the interior of the property for recreation purposes 10 years from the date of complete conveyance to the State Parks and BLM (ESA 2004). Several of the existing access roads that make up components of the existing ROW or are components of the alternative alignments are proposed to be recreational trails at full access implementation. Further it is anticipated that some of the areas identified as potential secondary staging areas could be suitable for recreational development (e.g., camping or picnic grounds).

3.3.3 Wilder Ranch State Park Wilder Ranch State Park, owned and managed by California State Parks, includes almost 5,000 acres of coastal habitat and recreational area with approximately 900 acres in agriculture, some cattle grazing, and a cultural preserve (California State Parks 2003) (Figure 2-1). The park is located to the west of the City of Santa Cruz, at the northern tip of Monterey Bay. The property stretches from Wilder Beach in the south to Major’s Canyon in the north, encompassing more than 5 miles of coastland. The property consists of ocean beaches and shoreline cliffs; benchlands used for

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-2 3.0 Land Use and Planning agriculture, particularly the cultivation of brussels sprouts; higher grasslands used for livestock grazing; and forest land of redwood and oak in the high country.

The park development concepts outlined in the Wilder Ranch State Park, Preliminary General Plan, Department of Parks and Recreation, March 1980, are based on the development of a limited number of intensive use areas, such as the Ranch House Complex, while leaving the majority of the Park in existing land use (e.g., agriculture predominantly on the lower coastal terrace) or relatively natural conditions accessible on foot (e.g., the upper marine terraces). At this time the State’s development plan called for a Majors walk-in campground with 30 sites near Majors Creek and a Marine Terrace Campground, with 130 drive in campsites on the marine terraces between Majors and Baldwin Creeks.

The park includes 39.4 miles of trails predominantly in the upland portions of the Park. The trails are open to use by hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders. There are five trails that could be impacted by the NCP reach construction along the Highway 1 corridor. The Ohlone Bluff Trail runs from the Baldwin Creek Coastal Access on Highway 1 to the coastal bluffs and then east along the bluffs to the eastern boundary and north to the Park Office. The NCP will cross this trail at the Coastal Access point. Four trails located in the Wilder Creek and Peasley Gulch watersheds, Wilder Ridge Loop Trail, Wagon Wheel Trail, Engelsmans Loop Trail, and Cowboy Loop Trail are crossed by the NCP alignment.

Inholdings within park boundaries that could be affected by construction activities include the City of Santa Cruz sanitary landfill, located in the highlands, and access to the sand and gravel quarry adjacent to Highway 1, which bisects the property from south to north (Dwyer et al. 1980). According to the 1994 Santa Cruz General Plan, the area on this property traversed by the pipeline is designated predominantly as “O-R” for ‘existing parks and recreation’.

• Sanitary Landfill - A large staging area for equipment and materials has been proposed for establishment adjacent to the landfill, located at 605 Dimeo Lane, which intersects Highway 1 about 3 miles north of the City limits in the Wilder Ranch State Park. It is maintained and operated by the City of Santa Cruz. The City operates and performs field maintenance on equipment and pumps used at this landfill. The 1994 Santa Cruz County General Plan has designated the landfill area as “P” for Public Facility. There is a small portion of land located to the south of the landfill and designated as “AG” for agriculture. The City of Santa Cruz General Plan has designated the landfill as “CF” for Commercial Facility. The NCP reach does not directly impact the landfill. However, the City owned landfill may offer potential for siting a large staging area for construction of several of the pipeline reaches.

• Wilder Quarry – The existing NCP reach crosses the entrance road to the Wilder sand quarry, located in Wilder Ranch State Park (p.d. 21,000 to 22,50). The quarry is designated as “Q” for Quarry in the 1994 General Plan. The preferred use identified in the County General Plan under the heading of “Proposed Park, Recreation, and Open Space” is development of visitor-serving recreational uses consistent with the quarry reclamation plan, and any permitted mining operation. The alternate use is the continuation of existing mining operation (County of Santa Cruz 1994).

3.3.4 Private Lands in Unincorporated Areas The Reggiardo Diversion and pipeline, and the Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, and NCP reaches traverse several private land holdings in unincorporated portions of Santa Cruz County (Figure 3-1). These lands are briefly described by reach below.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-3 3.0 Land Use and Planning

• The Reggiardo Diversion and pipeline are located at the northern most corner of a small private parcel adjacent to Smith Grade Road.

• The Laguna diversion is located on a City owned parcel off Smith Grade Road, but is bordered on all sides by private landholdings. A residence is located immediately upgradient of the diversion to the east.

• The Laguna reach enters private lands at p.d. 2000 where it turns south from Smith Grade Road. The pipeline runs along the edges of eight private holdings that extend down into the Laguna Creek gorge from either the east or west. Four of these parcels are owned by members of the Refugio Group that have homes on the ridge between Laguna and Y Creeks. Four of the parcels extend to the east toward Smith Grade Road and Back Ranch Road. There are no residences within 500 feet of the pipeline in this portion of the reach.

• The Laguna Alternative 3 Ridge alignment would depart Smith Grade Road at p.d. 1,200 feet and would traverse seven private parcels, six of which make up the Refugio Group land holdings. The total pipeline length on private lands is approximately 6,200 feet and there are seven residences within 500 feet of the pipeline route.

• The Laguna/Liddell Reach from approximately p.d. 3,800 to 4,600 feet traverses private property along the lower reach of Laguna Creek and the last 500 feet of the line although on TPL Coast Dairies property runs through an existing access road immediately adjacent to a couple of private residential properties

• The 5,000 feet of the NCP line is located on three private landholdings at the southern end of the Back Ranch Road area. Between Laguna Creek and Majors Creek.

• The NCP p.d. 27,000 feet to approximately 29,000 feet traverses the Fremont property that is used for grazing cattle.

3.3.5 City of Santa Cruz The NCP enters the Santa Cruz City limits at Moore Creek Preserve. The City of Santa Cruz acquired the 246-acre Moore Creek Preserve in 1998. The management of the preserve is a cooperative effort of the City of Santa Cruz and the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County. The Land Trust manages a conservation easement for the State of California. Moore Creek Preserve (previously known as the Bombay Property) features high-quality habitats, including wildflower fields, coastal prairie, rare examples of coast live oak, and riparian forest. A number of rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife and plant species inhabit the property, including the California red-legged frog, Ohlone tiger beetle, and the San Francisco popcorn flower. The preserve offers hiking trails through open meadows with scenic views of Monterey Bay (City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation 2003b). The NCP Reach traverses through the Moore Creek Preserve into the City limits. The 1994 County General Plan has designated the area as “AG” for agriculture.

The NCP reach passes through the urban residential and commercial areas in the City of Santa Cruz ending at the CPS. The City is divided into seven ‘Planning Areas’ reflecting census tracts and key physical and topographical boundaries. These seven planning areas are: UC Santa Cruz, Upper Westside, Lower Westside, Central Core, Harvey West, Upper Eastside, and Lower Eastside (City of Santa Cruz 1994). In the City, the pipeline traverses the ‘Planning Areas’ designated as the Upper Westside, Central Core, and Lower Westside areas outside the coastal zone.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-4 3.0 Land Use and Planning

As shown on Figures 3-1 and 9-6, numerous single-family homes, a church, and light industrial/commercial businesses lie within 500 feet of the existing pipeline ROW. The NCP enters the urban residential area on Meder Street and runs past residential homes and the Bay Street Water Tank along Cardiff Court, Cardiff Avenue to High Street. From p.d. 38,000 feet on High Street to p.d. 40,300 feet the pipeline traverses several single-family home residences on Kalkar Drive, Spring Street, Ross Street, Orthalon Avenue, and Meadow Court. These streets along the NCP can be viewed on Figure 13-1. In this reach the NCP lies immediately adjacent to, or possibly under, existing homes. The pipeline descends a steep wooded slope to Harvey West Regional Park, and then it diagonally traverses several commercial and light industrial properties on Harvey West Boulevard, Encinal Street, Pioneer Street, and Golf Club Drive enroute to its terminus at the CPS (p.d. 40,200 to 44, 252 feet). Aerial photography was used to estimate the number of homes and commercial buildings in close proximity to the existing pipeline in this area. At a minimum, 20 residences and one church are immediately adjacent to the pipeline from Kalkar Drive to Meadow Court. The number of homes within 500 feet of the pipeline in this area is estimated to be approximately 132 single-family homes. From p.d. 41,000 to the CPS the pipeline passes through and immediately adjacent to approximately seven commercial properties, and passes within 500 feet of three residences along Golf Club Drive. In addition, the pipeline passes beneath the railroad line along Golf Club Drive.

The NCP High Street alternative alignment would still influence a substantial number of homes and businesses, but it would not pass directly through any private properties. It would temporarily restrict use of the bike path between High Street and Evergreen Street.

3.4 Potential Land Use and Planning Impacts

Potential impacts to land use are discussed and evaluated below. Also included in this discussion are measures to mitigate or reduce the level of significance of each impact, where applicable. Impact methodologies and the CEQA significance criteria used to evaluate each impact are also included.

3.4.1 Thresholds of Significance The evaluation of potential impacts to land use is based on the alternative’s potential to conflict with existing or proposed land uses in the Project area. In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on land use if it would result in any of the following:

• Conflict with sensitive land uses during construction or operations and maintenance

• Conflict with or be incompatible with the land use objectives, policies, or guidance of the County General Plan and the LCP

• Substantial conflict with existing or planned land use in the Project area

• Substantial conflict with existing or planned adjacent land uses

• Would physically divide an established community

• Result in property damage

• Result in a loss of revenue to commercial enterprises

• Create construction-related hazards to residents and businesses

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-5 3.0 Land Use and Planning

3.4.2 Impact Methodology Potential impacts from the proposed Project described in Chapter 2 were assessed by analyzing the components of each proposed Project against known locations of specific land use in the Project area. The methodology is comprised of two steps: 1) evaluation of the proposed alternatives against the baseline conditions presented in Section 3.3 of this chapter, and 2) comparison of the potential impacts that the project may cause relative to the thresholds of significance listed above.

3.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts This section provides an overview of the impacts that could occur during construction of the project relative to the significance criteria defined above. Operations and maintenance activities are not expected to result in significant impacts with respect to any of these criteria. The proposed Project would not permanently change existing land use within the project area. If the NCS pipelines are replaced within the existing ROW, then no permanent modifications to land use or easements would be necessary. If one or more of the alternative alignments are selected, then additional easements would need to be acquired by the City, however no changes to established land uses would be expected.

With respect to the threshold criteria defined above, the proposed Project is not expected to alter the ability to utilize any land in a manner consistent with current and known future uses.

Conflict with sensitive land uses during construction or operations and maintenance

Construction of the pipeline in the existing alignment may result in short-term conflicts with several land uses that are common along the NCS routes including recreation, agriculture, rural and urban residential, industrial/commercial, and habitat preservation land uses. Pipeline construction in close proximity to these existing land uses could result in significant short-term impacts. For example, noise, odor, construction emissions, and dust impacts could potentially disturb residences up to 500 feet from the construction work area. Implementation of mitigation measures 3-2 and 3-3 would reduce these impacts, but are unlikely to reduce them to less than significant levels. Where residential properties are directly affected by construction activities such as restricted access, trenching, or landscape removal, implementation of mitigation measures 3-4 would reduce these impacts, but are unlikely to reduce them to less than significant levels.

Operations and maintenance activities have the potential to conflict with various land uses, particularly recreation and rural residential land uses. However, the implementation of applicable BMPs and mitigation measures could reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. Reach- specific examples are identified below.

Conflict with or be incompatible with the land use objectives, policies, or guidance of the County General Plan and the LCP

Construction, as well as, operations and maintenance activities are expected to be compatible with existing land use objectives, policies, and the guidance of the County General Plan and the LCP.

Substantially conflict with existing or planned land use in the Project area

The proposed construction and O&M activities are not expected to conflict with or result in a change in any existing or planned land use in the Project area.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-6 3.0 Land Use and Planning

Substantially conflict with existing or planned adjacent land uses

The proposed construction and O&M activities are not expected to conflict with or result in a change in any existing or planned land use adjacent to the Project area.

Would physically divide an established community

The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community.

Could the proposed construction or O&M result in property damage

There are a number of areas where construction would be required in relatively close proximity to established residences and commercial buildings. In these instances some risk of property damage exists. Potential reach-specific impacts are discussed below. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact, but is unlikely to reduce all impacts to a less than significant level.

Could the proposed construction or O&M result in a loss of revenue to commercial enterprises

Although construction impacts in most areas are expected to be short in duration, the potential exists along the existing NCP ROW for commercial enterprises to have restricted customer access for a period of time such that some loss of revenue could occur. Implementation of BMPs and mitigation measures could reduce the level of this impact, but are unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Currently, the City maintains an 8- to 10- foot ROW along the existing pipeline route. Where operations and maintenance activities are conducted completely within the existing ROW, then no new disturbances would occur. During installation of the pipeline, the construction ROW would be wider than the existing ROW and therefore impacts could result outside of the existing ROW. The pipeline project is still in the conceptual design phase. Until final design plans are developed the total acres of land that could be affected by construction activities is unknown.

Impacts to agricultural resources are discussed in Chapter 4 Agricultural Resources. Residential lands would experience temporary and permanent impacts. Temporary construction impacts on residential areas could include inconvenience caused by noise and dust generated by construction equipment, personnel, and trenching of roads or driveways; restriction of access; ground disturbance; safety issues including close proximity to open trenches and heavy equipment, removal of landscaping; and potential damage to homes, landscape irrigation systems, swimming pools, septic systems or wells. Also, future maintenance of the pipeline and a potential pipeline rupture could also impact additional residential land. Noise impacts to residence are discussed in Chapter 12 and dust impacts are discussed in Chapter 11.

3.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Potential impacts to land use are limited to the Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and NCP reaches for construction activities. The Laguna Reach is the only reach expected to have potential impacts related to O&M activities. These impacts have been discussed in Section 3.4.3 and are identified below. Applicable mitigation measures are presented in Section 3.5.5. The alternatives for the diversion structures and pipeline reaches that are anticipated to have a significant or beneficial impact to land

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-7 3.0 Land Use and Planning use and planning resources are discussed below. All other diversion structures/pipeline reaches and associated alternatives are not discussed, as land use impacts from construction and O&M activities are not expected.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) For example, Reggiardo Diversion would be labeled Land Use Impact R-1, Land Use Impact R-2, etc. Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it would be labeled Land Use Impact 1-1, Land Use Impact 1-2, etc.

3.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

3.5.1.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 2-1: Construction activities could result in short-term conflicts with sensitive land use.

The proposed Project would replace the pipeline in the existing alignment except for some minor re- routing anticipated to avoid a mature oak located at the edge of the open area at approximately 1,750 feet along the alignment. The pipeline would be buried in most locations except where necessary to preserve large trees. Because the pipeline would run adjacent to an existing paved residential access road, would traverse a residential lot, and would run immediately adjacent to residences at the lower end of Laguna Creek, construction activities could temporarily impact this residential land use. Construction, therefore, could potentially result in a significant short-term impact on land use, as construction may impair access to the residential parcel and may result in short-term impacts associated with noise, dust and impacts to the residential landscaping. Staging areas would not be located on private land, thus would not impact land use in these areas.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 3-1 and 3-5 would reduce the level of impact, but may not reduce all impacts to less than significant levels.

3.5.2 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

3.5.2.1 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 2-1: Construction activities could result in short-term conflicts with sensitive land use.

The proposed Project would replace the pipeline in the existing TPL Coast Dairies access road.. The buried pipeline would run immediately adjacent to residences at the lower end of Laguna Creek. Construction activities could temporarily impact this residential land use. Construction, therefore, could potentially result in a significant short-term impact on land use, as construction may impair access to the residential parcels and may result in short-term impacts associated with noise, dust and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-8 3.0 Land Use and Planning impacts to the residential landscaping. Staging areas would not be located on private land, thus would not impact land use in these areas.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 3-1 and 3-5 would reduce the level of impact, but may not reduce all impacts to less than significant levels.

3.5.3 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

3.5.3.1 LAG Alternative 3 – Ridge Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 3-1: Construction of the proposed Project could result in the temporary disruption of existing, developing, or approved residential, commercial, industrial, extractive, governmental, or institutional land uses.

This alternative would re-route the pipeline up the residential access road along the ridgeline between Laguna and Y creeks. It is anticipated that construction would result in short-term disruption of traffic along Smith Grade Road and the residential access road (see Chapter 14.0, Transportation and Traffic). Construction would occur within 500 feet of at least seven rural residences accessed along this road. Construction could temporarily disturb cattle grazing along the meadow areas adjacent to the access road.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 would reduce the level of these potential impacts, but are unlikely to reduce all impacts to a less than significant level.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 3-2: O&M activities may result in short-term conflicts with sensitive land use.

This alternative would require pipeline maintenance to be conducted along a residential access road that is currently not impacted by the NCS. This alignment would require the development of new easements and O&M protocols compatible with minimal disturbance of local residents. With these mitigation measures, O&M impacts on residential land use could be reduced to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Implement Mitigation 3-1 and 3-5 to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.

3.5.4 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors The construction-related impacts and mitigation measures are expected to be the same for Alternative 2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4. Therefore, impacts are only discussed for Alternative 2.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-9 3.0 Land Use and Planning

3.5.4.1 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 4-1: Construction of the proposed Projects could result in the temporary disruption of existing, developing, or approved residential, commercial, industrial, extractive, governmental, or institutional land uses.

The proposed Project would include replacement of the pipeline in the existing alignment. Construction along the existing ROW will require extensive activity below the existing access road and on the lower marine terrace. The extent of the land use impact would be dependent upon the stage of recreational development achieved in Wilder Ranch State Park. Under current conditions, disruptions due to construction are expected to be less than significant. If substantial public access and recreational facilities (e.g., walk-in and drive-in campgrounds) have been developed prior to construction, then the multiple-week construction period is expected to cause potentially significant short-term impacts to recreational land use and could result in reduced commercial access and loss of revenue.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 may reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Replacement of the pipeline within the existing alignment would result in no changes to baseline conditions. Modifications to O&M protocols may need to be negotiated with State Parks to minimize impacts to recreational activities as facilities and public access are developed in the Majors Creek watershed (see Chapter 5.0, Recreation).

3.5.5 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

3.5.5.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 5-1: Construction of the proposed Projects could result in the temporary disruption of existing, developing, or approved residential, commercial, industrial, extractive, governmental, or institutional land uses.

Pipeline construction within the existing NCP ROW would result in significant impacts to residential, agricultural, recreational, and commercial land uses.

• Construction would occur in very close proximity to residences resulting in significant impacts at: 1) residences at the very beginning of the NCP reach at Laguna Creek; 2) farm residences at properties located along Highway 1; 3) at residences located along City of Santa Cruz streets through which the pipeline would pass; and 4) single family residences located on parcels through which the existing ROW passes (p.d. 38,000 to 44,250).

• Construction would occur on or immediately adjacent to agricultural lands used for crop production (e.g., brussels sprouts) and grazing (e.g., the Fremont property) (See Section 4.0 Agricultural Resources)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-10 3.0 Land Use and Planning

• Construction along the Highway 1 corridor could result in short-term impacts to recreational land uses associated with access to recreational facilities and activities at Red, White and Blue Beach, various points of access in Wilder Ranch State Park, Moor Creek Preserve, Harvey West Park, and greenbelt open space in the City of Santa Cruz. Short-term impacts would also be associated with aesthetic impairment, noise, dust, and safety issues. (See Section 5.0 Recreational Resources).

• Construction could disrupt social, commercial and industrial activities at several locations including the access road to Red White and Blue Beach, the City Landfill, the Wilder Quarry, active agricultural lands, commercial/industrial properties near Harvey West Park and social/community activities could be disrupted at the High Street Community Church.

Construction related to this alternative would result in short-term impacts such as difficulty or loss of residential and commercial access, disruption of utility services, property damage, potential safety issues, noise, dust, and disruption and/or damage to existing roads or landscaping.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 3-2, 3-3 and 3-4 would reduce the level of impact, but is unlikely to reduce all impacts to a less than significant level.

3.5.5.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

The existing and alternative NCP alignments have identical impacts from the origin of the NCP reach to High Street (p.d. 38,000) in the City of Santa Cruz. Alternative 3 avoids significant unmitigatable impacts associated with construction across developed residential and commercial properties by routing the pipeline through surface streets and a bike path to the CPS.

Construction-Related Impacts

Land Use Impact 5-2: Construction of the proposed projects could result in the temporary disruption of existing, developing, or approved residential, commercial, industrial, extractive, governmental, or institutional land uses.

Pipeline construction under this alternative would result in significant impacts to residential, agricultural, recreational, and commercial land uses as discussed above (See above, NCP Existing Alignment). The alternative alignment would result in short-term impacts to residential and commercial land use along High Street, Coral Street, Encinal Avenue, and River Street and the use of the bike path due to restricted access, noise, dust, and safety issues. Despite these potential impacts this alternative provides a substantially reduce level of impact relative to construction within the last 6,000 feet of the existing alignment.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3-1 would reduce the potential impacts to a level less than significant along the alternative alignment.

3.6 Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 3-1: To minimize short-term conflicts between construction activities and sensitive land use, a construction coordination plan would be developed. As a part of the plan, residents and commercial operators would be notified of construction schedules and of any potential traffic controls that would be required.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-11 3.0 Land Use and Planning

Mitigation 3-2: Residential and commercial property damaged as a result of construction activities would be restored to as close to its original state as possible [replace landscaping and repair driveways; and fences or other property modified during construction].

Mitigation 3-3: As a safety measure, safety fencing would be installed around construction areas and open trenches would be backfilled or covered at the end of each workday, and BMPs will also be implemented to avoid and/or minimize dust and construction-related emissions.

Mitigation 3-4: Prior to construction, SCWD would work with individual residents and/or commercial operators to maintain access to properties.

Mitigation 3-5: Prior to construction and O&M activities, SCWD would negotiate with the landowners on new easements and O&M protocols that minimally disturb local residents and commercial operations.

Mitigation 3-6: Although not necessary under current conditions, this mitigation measure could become necessary in the future, should substantial public access and recreational facilities be developed prior to construction. A construction coordination plan would need to be developed for Wilder Ranch State Park. Clearly marked signage would need to show hours of construction and the schedule. Traffic controls would also be necessary and would be a part of the construction coordination plan.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 3-12 4.0 Agricultural Resources

4.0 Agricultural Resources

4.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

The proposed Project is located in northern Santa Cruz County and in the City of Santa Cruz. The entire NCS is located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. The NCS includes five distinct pipeline reaches: Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, Majors, and the NCP. The pipeline crosses 12 defined watersheds and traverses lands held by both public and private entities (ENTRIX 2002a).

4.2 Regulatory Considerations

4.2.1 Federal Regulations United States Code (USC) Title 7- Chapter 73, Section 4201 states that (a) “nation’s farmland is a unique natural resource and provides food and fiber necessary for the continued welfare of the people of the United States, and (b) the statement of purpose is to minimize the extent to which Federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses and to assure that Federal programs are administered in a manner that, to the extent practicable, would be compatible with State, unit of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland.”

4.2.2 State Regulations The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act, contains the statutes (laws), governing the administration of its various activities. The Open Space Subvention Act of 1971 contains the statutes governing subvention payments to cities and counties for lands enrolled under Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone contracts or other defined enforceable restrictions.

The California Farmland Conservancy Program (CFCP) under the Division of Land Resource Protection is a voluntary program that seeks to encourage the long-term, private stewardship of agricultural lands through the use of agricultural conservation easements. The CFCP provides grant funding for projects, which use and support agricultural conservation easements for protection of agricultural lands.

Chapter 6 under Title 14, and Division 2 of the CCR provides a framework for the functions of the CFCP. Section 10213 (a) states that “Agricultural land” means prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, unique farmland, farmland of local importance, and commercial grazing land as defined in the Guidelines for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), pursuant to Section 65570 of the CCR. According to Section 10213 (b), in those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for classification pursuant to subdivision (a), land shall meet the requirements of “prime agricultural land” as set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the CCR.

4.2.3 Local Regulations County of Santa Cruz Code Title 16.50 covers the Agricultural Land Preservation and Protection under Environmental and Resource Protection. It provides the designation and preservation of the different types of agricultural land. According to the Criteria for Designation under Section

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-1 4.0 Agricultural Resources

16.50.040, 5(c), Type 3 is Prime Agricultural Land that exists within the Coastal Zone in Santa Cruz County. Under Section 16.50.80 (a), lands designated under Type 3 agricultural land shall be maintained as Commercial Agriculture (CA) Zone District, or if within a Timber Resource, be maintained in the Timber Production (“TP”) Zone District, or if within a public park, be maintained in the Parks and Recreation (“PR”) Zone District. Section 16.50.080 (c) authorizes Santa Cruz County to prohibit placement of sewer or water lines, other than for agricultural use, on Type 3 agricultural lands. Raw water transmission lines from North Coast sources to the City of Santa Cruz shall be exempt from this policy only if safeguards are adopted which assure that such facilities would not result in the conversion of Type 3 agricultural lands to nonagricultural uses. Such safeguards shall include, but are not be limited to: 1) deed restrictions to prohibit hookups to trunk lines through agricultural lands, and 2) prohibit the levying of assessment fees against prime agricultural land for the construction of sewage transmission lines running through them. Under Section 16.50.080 (d), Santa Cruz County shall oppose the expansion of municipal boundaries, which would include Type 3 agricultural land within municipal boundaries.

Thus, the agricultural land traversed by the pipeline can be broadly categorized as Type 3, and as such are governed by the regulations for that specific land type. The type of land ownership (i.e., public or private) would also be a factor for regulatory considerations.

4.3 Existing Agricultural Resource Conditions

This section describes the existing agricultural conditions in the Project area. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Service, 1997 Census of Agriculture, the County of Santa Cruz has 722 farms with an average of 98 acres each, totaling 71,115 acres. The Division of Land Resource Protection has formed an FMMP to provide consistent and impartial data to decision makers for use in assessing present status, reviewing trends, and planning for the future of California’s agricultural land resources. FMMP produces “Important Farmland Maps,” with resource quality (soils) and land use information (Department of Conservation 2003).

The production of high-value vegetables on the North Coast began in the early 1900s. It was enabled by a series of irrigation projects that allowed growers to convert land previously used for pasture and hay production to irrigated row crops (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). Vegetable growers found the unique summer climate suitable for specialty vegetables, especially artichokes and Brussels sprouts, which require a long, cool growing season. The land along the existing and Alternative Alignments currently used for agricultural purposes is primarily adjacent to Highway 1.

The USDA’s Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has divided soil types into capability classes and subclasses that show, in a general way, the suitability of soil for most kinds of field crops (USDA 1980). The State of California, Department of Conservation has identified farmland important to California based on SCS’s soil survey (USDA 1980) and current land use information (Department of Conservation 2002). The Department of Conservation has identified Prime Farmland as irrigated land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. The soils are classed according to their limitations when they are used for field crops, the risk of damage when they are used, and the way they respond to treatment.

Most soils along the project route (existing pipeline and Alternative Alignments) have severe or very severe limitations that either reduce the choice of plants, require special conservation or management practices, or result in its unsuitability for cultivation. Capability Farmland of Statewide Importance is defined as irrigated land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-2 4.0 Agricultural Resources chemical characteristics for the production of agricultural crops. This land has minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture than Prime Farmland. Land with these designations must have been used for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date.

According to the land use distribution in the County of Santa Cruz (Department of Conservation 2003), the NCS passes through only a small portion of Grazing land, Prime Farmland, and/or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Figure 4-1). The majority of the other land in the vicinity is urban and built-up Land. The pipeline passes through Wilder Ranch State Park owned and managed by California State Parks. A portion of lands between Wilder Ranch State Park and the City of Santa Cruz is used as grazing lands (ENTRIX 2002a). According to the 1994 Santa Cruz General Plan, the area traversed by the pipeline reaches in the Coastal Dairies property owned by TPL is designated predominantly as “AG” for agricultural land.

4.3.1 Important Farmland Categories Approximately 90 percent of the FMMP’s study area is covered by the USDA modern soil surveys. A classification system that combines technical soil ratings and current land use is the basis for the Important Farmland Maps of these lands. In areas where no soil survey is available, a series of Interim Farmland definitions have been developed to allow land use monitoring until soils data becomes available.

• Unique Farmland is farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated, but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. The land must have been cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.

• Farmland of Local Importance is land of importance to the local agricultural economy as determined by each county’s board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

• Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. This category was developed in cooperation with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and other groups interested in the extent of grazing activities. The minimum mapping unit for Grazing Land is 40 acres.

• Urban and Built-Up Land is land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad, and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

• Other Land is land not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low- density rural developments; brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing; confined livestock, poultry, or aquaculture facilities; strip mines, borrow pits; and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land.

• Water consists of perennial water bodies with an extent of at least 40 acres.

Table 4-1 summarizes portions of farmland traversed by the NCS.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-3 4.0 Agricultural Resources

4.3.2 Agricultural Production in County of Santa Cruz Table 4-2 lists the leading commodities for gross value (dollars) of agricultural production for Santa Cruz County in 2001.

Agricultural production within the City of Santa Cruz is limited and consists of small-scale organic agricultural uses. The Unique Farmlands are areas with Class I, II, and III soils, currently utilized for cattle grazing, and the undeveloped lands on the City’s Far West side. This area is predominantly classed as Type IV, V, and VI soils, which are most suitable for pasture and range purposes. The risk of soil erosion depends upon the type of soil, slope of the land, slope length, rainfall amount and intensity, and vegetation cover. Erosion potential is rated high to very high on the Bonny Doon soil types. Because of the difficulties in preventing erosion, development of these areas must be limited in accordance with soil conservation practices, including minimal grading and retention of existing native vegetation (City of Santa Cruz 1994).

The Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, and Majors reaches (all routes) do not pass through any lands considered to be important or special status farmlands (see Figure 4-1). According to the Department of Conservation Important Farmland Map (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1), portions of the NCP Reach (discontinuously between p.d. 6,000 and 23,000 feet, and between p.d. 42,000 and 43,500 feet) cross Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance.

4.3.3 Irrigation Sources and Outages A majority of the agricultural activity in the project area occurs on the ocean side of Highway 1, of which there are three sources of water used for irrigation: untreated raw water (from the NCS System), ground water and surface water. Goddard and Brennan (2001) identified a total of 15 wells and 25 City of Santa Cruz services used for irrigation purposes. Surface water sources of irrigation include Laguna Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Miramar Pond, Baldwin Creek, and Little Baldwin Creek. Some of the growers in the project area have only one source of irrigation water, while others may have access to multiple sources.

The eastern portion of the project area relies exclusively on groundwater while the western portion of the project area relies on surface water. In the center portion of these two areas, growers rely on a combination of sources that vary depending on the time of the year and availability of each individual source of water. Inland of Highway 1 (north), growers rely mainly on City supplied water (Goddard and Brennan, 2001).

At various times throughout the year, irrigation supplies in the project area are unavailable for various reasons. Late in the growing season groundwater and smaller surface water supplies may become depleted, at which time growers typically begin to use water from the NCS. The most common cause for irrigation outages associated with the NCS is when turbidity levels in the supply water are too high due to rainfall events. The typical trigger for this occurrence is when one inch or more of rainfall is received in the watershed. These type of outages usually last for a minimum of two days.

Additionally, irrigation supplies are unavailable during responses to repair leaks. Under these circumstances, the irrigation supply can be out for up to a week. Interruptions to water supplies during repair activities are also common as new segments of pipe are incorporated into the system. However, these types of shut downs typically last anywhere from ½ hour (minimum) to a day (maximum).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-4 4.0 Agricultural Resources

4.4 Potential Agriculture Impacts

Tables 4-3 and 4-4 summarizes potential agricultural resource impacts for construction and O&M activities, respectively.

4.4.1 Thresholds of Significance In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on agricultural resources if it would result in any of the following:

• Directly convert substantial Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;

• Result in the short-term loss or substantial impairment of productivity on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance;

• Conflict with a Williamson Act contract or existing zoning for agricultural use; or

• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in substantial conversion of Farmland or other agricultural lands to nonagricultural use.

4.4.2 Impact Methodology Potential impacts from the proposed Project described in Chapter 2 were assessed by analyzing the components of the proposed Project against known agricultural lands in the Project area. The methodology comprised of two steps: (1) evaluation of the proposed alternatives against the baseline conditions presented in Section 4.3 of this chapter; and (2) comparison of the potential impacts that the project may cause to the thresholds of significance listed above.

4.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The project ROW passes through the lands that have been used for crop production and cattle and dairy cow grazing since approximately 1900 (MLML 1993; Env. Sci. Assoc. 2002). Prime farmland and Farmland of Statewide importance is located only along the NCP Reach adjacent to Highway 1 (Figure 4-1). These lands are expected to remain in production throughout the implementation of this project under long-term conservation easements or leases with California State Parks and Wilder Ranch State Park. Cattle grazing has been discontinued in the majority of the Project area, with the exception of the pasture lands that exist along the ridge top along the Laguna Alternative Alignment.

4.4.3.1 Construction

Based on the project description provided in Chapter 2, the NCP Reach will be constructed in the existing alignment underground adjacent to the Highway 1 corridor where special status farmlands exist. With respect to the significance criteria defined above:

• No agricultural lands will be permanently removed from agricultural use and no structures will be built on agricultural lands;

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-5 4.0 Agricultural Resources

• Short-term disruption of agricultural activity may occur in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline and staging areas during construction;

• Soil productivity impacts in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline may occur if fertile topsoil is mixed with less productive subsurface soils, compaction occurs, or soil structure is damaged, and;

• Soil productivity may be degraded at staging areas located on agricultural lands due to soil compaction, particularly if one staging area is used repeatedly throughout the project.

Portions of the NCP Reach/NCP Reach Alternative discontinuously cross lands identified as either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (see Figure 4-1, Table 4-1). Because the proposed Project does not include any aboveground facilities in the areas identified as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, displacement of agricultural land uses would not occur. However, farming operations could be disrupted during construction activities, which could result in a loss of farming income. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant.

Short-term Disruptions

Short-term disruption of agricultural production could potentially occur during the growing season as a result of pipeline construction activities. This would most likely occur along the portion of the NCS pipeline alignment that passes through or adjacent to agricultural lands. In most areas the existing pipeline ROW is aligned with access roads that border the agricultural fields.

The NCS is one of three sources of water used for irrigation in the project area, along with ground water and surface water. Ground water is provided via 15 wells located throughout the area and surface water sources include Laguna Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Miramar Pond, Baldwin Creek and Little Baldwin Creek (Goddard and Brennan 2002).

There is the potential for periodic interruptions in irrigation water supplies when and if the existing NCS pipeline alignment is removed or disconnected during construction. While outages may occur during construction they would not be expected to exceed current outage conditions. However, if one of the irrigation water supply sources were to be disrupted for a prolonged period of time, it could cause the potential for crop damage, especially if the remaining two irrigation sources were not able to meet irrigation demands. This could result in potentially significant impacts to agricultural resources.

Soil Compaction

In the areas identified as Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, the movement of heavy construction equipment back and forth along the construction ROW and in staging areas could result in soil compaction. The degree of compaction would depend on the moisture content and texture of the soil. Compaction damages soil structure and reduces pore space, which impedes the movement of air and water to plant roots, resulting in loss of soil productivity and lower potential growth rates. Damage to soil structure makes soils more susceptible to erosion and inhibits rainfall infiltration and natural drainage. When soils are wet, compaction becomes more likely. The abundant moisture along the pipeline route in the winter months makes the soils prone to compaction and structural damage from construction during and following each heavy rainstorm. Clodding or rutting at shallow depths complicates planting in agricultural areas and can increase the erosion potential.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-6 4.0 Agricultural Resources

Topsoil Mining

Trenching and backfilling, as well as the concentrated movement of construction equipment along the construction ROW, can result in mixing of topsoil and subsoil and can dilute the productivity of the soil by mixing the physical and chemical properties of the topsoil with the relatively infertile subsoil. Construction in excessively wet conditions can mix subsoil with topsoil from rutting. In addition, construction activities, including trenching in shallow underlying bedrock, could introduce rock into topsoil and interfere with the operation of agricultural equipment. Although minimization and mitigation measures could help reduce impacts, the impacts would still be considered potentially significant due to the potential loss of farming income.

Potential minimization and mitigation measures to minimize disruption of agricultural activities that reduce soil compaction and soil horizon mixing in important farmland areas during construction include:

• Place the pipeline and staging areas in or immediately adjacent to existing agricultural access roads, rather than productive land whenever possible;

• During construction, leave the existing pipeline intact as long as possible to avoid disruption of irrigation water supply and coordinate with the growers on the construction schedule;

• Schedule heavy construction and restoration activities to avoid excessively wet periods; and

• Introduce topsoil segregation and subsurface plowing, particularly in agricultural areas, to help control and mitigate the multiple effects of soil compaction due to construction.

4.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Potential impacts to agriculture are limited to the NCP Reach for construction activities. These impacts have been discussed above in Section 4.4 and are identified below. Because Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 for the NCP Reach are identical through the agricultural areas along Highway 1, these potential impacts and the potential mitigation measures are the same and are not discussed further. Applicable mitigation measures are presented in Section 4.5.2. All other diversion structures/pipeline reaches and associated alternatives are not discussed, as impacts from construction and O&M activities are not expected.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Agricultural Resource Impact R-1, Agricultural Resource Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Agricultural Resource Impact 1-1, Agricultural Resource Impact 1-2, etc.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-7 4.0 Agricultural Resources

4.5.1 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

4.5.1.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Agricultural Resource Impact 5-1: Short-term disruption of agricultural activities.

The cropland within the Project area is located adjacent to the NCP Reach and Highway 1 (Figure 4-1). These lands are expected to remain in production throughout the implementation of this project under long-term conservation easements or leases with California State Parks and Wilder Ranch State Park. Portions of the NCP Reach (discontinuously between 6,000 and 23,000 feet, and between 42,000 and 43,100 feet) cross lands identified as either Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance (see Figure 4-1).

Agricultural activities could be temporarily disrupted during the growing season in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline and staging areas as a result of construction activities. Depending on the period of disruption and availability of other water sources, a short-term loss of farming income could occur. This would result in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Agricultural Resource Impact 5-2: Short-term disruption of irrigation water supply.

Agricultural lands that rely exclusively on NCS water for irrigation could experience a short-term disruption of irrigation water supply when and if the existing pipeline is removed or disconnected during construction. Depending on the period of disruption and availability of other water sources, crops could be damaged and crop yield reduced. These would result in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-2 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Agricultural Resource Impact 5-3: Topsoil mining can potentially reduce soil productivity.

Soil productivity may be reduced in the immediate vicinity of the pipeline if fertile topsoil and less productive subsurface soils are mixed during construction activities. Topsoil and subsurface soil can also be mixed from construction activities during excessively wet conditions. Although minimization and mitigation measures could help reduce impacts, the impacts would still be considered potentially significant due to the potential loss of farming income.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-3 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Agricultural Resource Impact 5-4: Soil compaction could potentially occur along pipeline and staging areas.

Soil compaction may occur on pipeline ROW and primary staging areas with repeated use during periods of construction and is more likely during wet conditions. Soil compaction can also reduce soil productivity.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-8 4.0 Agricultural Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4-3 would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

4.5.1.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Impacts to agricultural resources are the same for both existing and alternate alignments except that the Alternative Alignment would avoid important farmland between 42,000 and 43,100 feet along the existing alignment. No new farmlands would be impacted by the alternative. The same mitigation measures associated with the existing alignments would also be implemented with each impact to minimize potentially impacts, although impacts would still be considered potentially significant.

4.5.2 Recommended Mitigation Measures Potential minimization and mitigation measures could be implemented for the construction of all alternatives on the NCP Reach to minimize disruption of agricultural activities that reduce soil compaction and soil horizon mixing in important farmland areas.

Mitigation 4-1: To minimize disruption to agricultural activities, the following measures should be implemented.

• Notify growers of construction schedule three months prior to any construction activities

• To the extent possible, place the pipeline and staging areas in existing agricultural access roads, rather than productive land whenever possible

Mitigation 4-2: The following mitigation measure should be implemented to minimize the disruption to irrigation water supply.

• During construction, irrigation supplies should not be shut down for more than a couple of days at any one time during the late summer so as to prevent impacts to irrigators during the extreme dry summer months (typically August and September).

Mitigation 4-3: To reduce the potential loss of soil productivity and the likelihood of soil compaction occurring, the following measures should be implemented.

• Place the pipeline and staging areas in or immediately adjacent to existing agricultural access roads, rather than on productive land whenever possible.

• Schedule heavy construction and restoration activities to avoid excessively wet periods.

• Introduce topsoil segregation and subsurface plowing, particularly in agricultural areas, to help control and mitigate the multiple effects of soil compaction due to construction.

• Avoid the placement and repeated use of staging areas on agricultural land.

4.5.3 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 4-9

5.0 Recreation

5.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter pertains to recreation resources in the Project area and their uses. Regulatory considerations and environmental conditions related to recreation are also described below. In general, environmental setting topics are discussed for all land management agencies and organizations applicable.

The Project area traverses urban and rural areas of Santa Cruz County. The county offers many recreation opportunities at both official and unofficially designated sites. Officially designated recreation sites in the county include parks operated by City governments, park districts, the County of Santa Cruz, and California State Parks. Unofficially designated recreation sites abound throughout the county to the ocean, beach, coastal foothill, and mountain/forest open space areas, and include the Trust for Public Land property (Coast Dairies Property). Santa Cruz County residents and visitors participate in a wide array of outdoor recreation opportunities including hiking, camping, equestrian, cycling, sports, leisure activities, boating, fishing, swimming, and surfing.

Dispersed recreation opportunities are found in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County that surround the project’s several existing and alternative alignments. The natural environment in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains attracts hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. No official recreational facilities, sites, or trails are found in the area of the proposed Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, and Majors Creek reaches, reach alternatives, or diversion facilities. The Coast Dairies Property and Majors Creek watershed in Wilder Ranch State Park are not currently open to recreation. However, it is anticipated that in the near future the property would be opened to hiking and other similar recreational activities.

Officially designated recreational facilities are found along eastern portions of Wilder Ranch State Park (near the park headquarters), at coastal areas (sections along Highway 1), and at several City- owned parks and preserve/open space areas (Figure 5-1).

5.2 Regulatory Considerations

5.2.1 State Regulations Under CEQA, environmental effects on a recreational resource should be assessed with the following parameters. A project is considered to have a significant effect if it were to:

• Increase the use of existing recreational facilities resulting in a physical deterioration of the facility; or

• Result in substantial adverse effects from construction of new or altered recreational facilities.

5.2.2 Local Regulations • The North Coast Beaches Master Plan – The plan adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in 1991 is the culmination of a planning effort that began in 1983. It responds to Coastal Act requirements that public access to the coastline be provided. The focus of the Master Plan is to

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-1 5.0 Recreation

provide public access while preserving the coastline’s fragile environment. The following beaches covered by the Master Plan have access across the Coast Dairies Property: Davenport Landing, Panther, Bonny Doon, Yellow Bank, and Laguna Creek. For all of these beaches, the Master Plan describes improvements in access (e.g., vehicle parking, bus stops, trails to the beach), restroom and trash facilities, and signage and interpretation. Many of the proposed improvements are in the Highway 1 ROW that would be implemented and designed by Caltrans (County of Santa Cruz 1991).

• The Santa Cruz County Land Use Element of the General Plan – The Land Use Element describes the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for open space, including natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, along with many other categories. Policy 2.22.1 of the Land Use Element establishes agriculture and coastal-dependent industry as the first priority for the portion of the Coastal Zone comprising the property. The second priority is recreation, including public parks, visitor-serving commercial uses, and coastal recreation facilities. Policy 2.22.2 prohibits the conversion of any existing priority use to another use, except for another use of equal or higher priority.

5.3 Existing Recreation Conditions

Recreation conditions along the proposed and existing pipeline alignments are described below.

5.3.1 TPL Coast Dairies Properties The Liddell Reach (Reach 1) is approximately 10,000 feet in length and mostly passes through redwood habitat on TPL property. Due to its remote location, most sections of the pipeline are not visible to recreationists or residents living in or near the Project area. Currently recreation use on TPL property is limited and by permit only (ESA 2004). The Laguna/Liddell Reach (Reach 2) is approximately 5,900 feet in length. Most of the pipeline is below ground except at stream crossings. As a result, the majority of the pipeline in this reach is not visible to recreationists or local residents. The Laguna Reach (Reach 3) is approximately 13,000 feet in length, and it follows Smith Grade Road for about 1,300 feet. The section that follows Smith Grade Road may be visible to residents or other recreationists using this road, or to residents living along the road.

5.3.2 Red, White and Blue Beach Red, White and Blue Beach located approximately 4 miles west of the City of Santa Cruz, is a privately held nude beach that offers day use facilities and overnight camping. During warm summer days this facility is reported to receive several hundred visitors (Citywide AOL, 2004). Construction of the NCP line will cross Scaroni Road at Highway 1, which could temporarily disrupt access to this location.

5.3.3 Wilder Ranch State Park Majors Reach (Reach 4) and NCP Reach (Reach 5) of the pipeline pass through Wilder Ranch State Park. It has 4,505 acres, with 34 miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails winding through coastal terraces and valleys (California State Parks 2003a). The park extends from the ocean bluffs to Highway 1 on the ocean side of the highway and up the slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the opposite side of the highway. On the upland side, several restored buildings once belonging to the Wilder family are preserved. The park has tours and living history demonstrations to help visitors

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-2 5.0 Recreation explore the history of early ranchers and farmers along the Central Coast. The site was originally the main rancho supplying Santa Cruz Mission. It later became a successful and innovative dairy ranch. Surrounding grounds include Victorian homes, gardens, and historic adobe. The NCP Reach follows Highway 1 from Wilder Ranch State Park to the City of Santa Cruz. Within Wilder State Park along Highway 1 are six beaches: Wilder beach (managed as a preserve), Fern Grotto, Sand Plant beach, Strawberry beach, Three mile beach, and Four mile beach. Activities that occur in these areas are hiking, camping, birdwatching, and windsurfing.

The Majors reach existing alignment and alternatives do not cross any existing designated trails or recreational facilities. The NCP reach does not directly impact any of the beach areas within the park, but it does cross four coastal recreation access points along Highway 1 (i.e., near Laguna Creek, Majors Creek, Baldwin Creek, Lombardi Gulch) as well as the Bicentennial Bike Path that runs along Highway 1 within the State Park (Figure 5-1). The park includes 39.4 miles of trails predominantly in the upland portions of the Park. The trails are open to use by hikers, mountain bikers, and horseback riders There are five trails that could be impacted by the NCP reach construction along the Highway 1 corridor. The Ohlone Bluff Trail runs from the Baldwin Creek Coastal Access on Highway 1 to the coastal bluffs and then east along the bluffs to the eastern boundary and north to the Park Office. The NCP will cross this trail at the Coastal Access point. Four trails located in the Wilder Creek and Peasley Gulch watersheds, Wilder Ridge Loop Trail, Wagon Wheel Trail, Engelsmans Loop Trail, and Cowboy Loop Trail are crossed by the NCP alignment.

The park development concepts outlined the Wilder Ranch State Park, Preliminary General Plan, Department of Parks and Recreation, March 1980, are based on the development of a limited number of intensive use areas, such as the Ranch House Complex, while leaving the majority of the Park in existing land use (e.g., agriculture predominantly on the lower coastal terrace) or relatively natural conditions accessible on foot (e.g., the upper marine terraces). At that time the State’s development plan called for a Majors walk-in campground with 30 sites near Majors Creek and Marine Terrace Campground with 130 drive in campsites on the marine terraces between Majors and Baldwin creeks.

5.3.4 Affected Recreation Areas in the City of Santa Cruz The City of Santa Cruz manages more than 1,000 acres of public park land and open space areas including four regional parks and 26 neighborhood parks (City of Santa Cruz 1994). Parks described below are those, which are traversed with either the existing pipeline or an alternate alignment.

• Moore Creek Preserve – The existing pipeline crosses the Preserve at about p.d. 29,000 and 31,000 (Figure 5-1), for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet. The current pipeline is not noticeable to casual users of the Preserve. This preserve is a 246-acre natural area at the western boundary of Santa Cruz. Moore Creek Preserve was acquired by the City of Santa Cruz in 1998 and is open to public use. This preserve offers hiking trails through open meadows with scenic views of Monterey Bay. Because of the sensitive resources within the preserve, public use is limited to hiking only, with no horses or dogs allowed. Cattle are grazed on the preserve to benefit native plant and animal species and to reduce the fire hazard. The area features good wildlife habitat affording wildlife watching opportunities. The preserve is open all year, and is undeveloped; there are no restrooms, drinking fountains, phones, or designated parking areas. Trails within the preserve are relatively limited (approximately 2.5 miles roundtrip).

• Arroyo Seco Canyon – The NCP Reach traverses the northern edge of Arroyo Seco Canyon (p.d. 34,000 to 34,600 feet). This area is a shady canyon with no developed facilities surrounded by residential neighborhoods. The northern access to Arroyo Seco is in University Terrace Park on Meder Street. The southern access is on Grandview Street. This site is surrounded by

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-3 5.0 Recreation

eucalyptus trees and features a mile-long trail that is steep in parts and unpaved at the lower end (City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation 2003a).

• Harvey West Municipal Park – The existing NCP Reach crosses the park for approximately 900 feet (p.d. 40,000 to 41,000 feet) between Meadow Road and Harvey West Boulevard. The park is 50 acres with hiking trails, pools, ball fields, play equipment, clubhouses, and picnic areas.

5.3.5 Future Recreation Development and Use Since construction and repair of the entire alignment is expected to span over the next 15 to 20 years, it is likely that the character and level of recreation use will change throughout the Project area. For example, the TPL Coast Dairies Property and the Majors Creek watershed portion of Wilder State Park are not open to public recreation. It is possible that over the life of the Project, recreation access to these areas will be improved, some recreation infrastructure may be developed, and recreation use will likely increase. However, it is currently unknown where and how much recreation access might occur.

The TPL Coast Dairies property encompasses approximately 7,000 acres that will be transferred to California State Parks (area downgradient of Highway 1) and the Bureau of Land Management (area upgradient of Highway 1). The Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Management and Use Plan calls for public access to the interior of the property for recreation purposes 10 years from the date of complete conveyance to the State Parks and BLM (ESA 2004). Several of the existing access roads that make up components of the existing ROW or are components of the alternative alignments are proposed to be recreational trails at full access implementation. Further, it is anticipated that some of the areas identified as potential secondary staging areas could be suitable for recreational development (e.g., camping or picnic grounds).

California State Parks has not developed specific recreation development plans for the western end of Wilder Ranch State Park since 1980; it is anticipated that this portion of the park could support activities such as hiking and camping. It is also anticipated that the roads currently used by the City to access the Majors Creek diversion and considered as pipeline ROW alternatives, could become the primary access road/hiking trail to interior park uses in the Majors Creek area.

Under current conditions construction impacts on recreational use in these areas are minimal due to the lack of authorized public access. However, should these lands be opened to public access recreation prior to the repair of the Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors and NCP reaches the potential for short-term disruption of recreational activities would be significant even with the implementation of applicable best management practices and mitigation measures.

5.3.6 Summary of Conditions Published data are not readily available on developed and dispersed recreation use in the Project area. As a result it is not clear exactly where or how much dispersed use occurs within the Project area. For example, it is assumed that some unauthorized hiking occurs on Project area lands that do not have developed facilities or trails. Dispersed recreation opportunities are found in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County that surround the project’s several existing and alternative alignments. The natural environment in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains attracts hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. No officially designated recreational facilities are found in the area of the proposed upland reaches, or adjacent to diversion facilities. The Coast Dairies Property and Majors Creek watershed in Wilder Ranch State Park are not currently open to recreation, but there is some use from

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-4 5.0 Recreation local residents. However, it is anticipated that these properties would be opened to hiking and other similar recreational activities. Except during the peak season for surfing, the Project area’s capacity (in terms of parking and access) can probably accommodate existing recreation use. This suggests that if access to a particular recreation area is blocked, recreationists could likely find other access points to other recreation areas within the Project area.

5.4 Potential Recreation Impacts

5.4.1 Thresholds of Significance In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on recreation if it would result in any of the following:

• Disrupt recreational use of the beach, ocean, or land-based resources, such as parks or recreational paths, or interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea during construction of the projects.

• Prevent a long-term recreational use, or substantially prevent a use during peak season, or interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea.

• Disrupt the recreation experience of private residents or others who recreate in the vicinity.

• Conflict with or be incompatible with the objectives, policies, or guidance of the General Plan, or state parks management (Majors Reach).

• Provide or enable access to previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas.

• Permanent alteration of recreation resources (e.g., use of recreation lands or waters, disturbance to unique vegetation, habitat or outstanding landscape characteristic).

5.4.2 Impact Methodology Potential impacts from the proposed Project described in Chapter 2 were assessed by analyzing the locations of each proposed Project against known locations of recreation use areas and by consulting with representatives of the local recreation opportunities providers in the Project area.

5.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts Dispersed recreation opportunities are found in the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County surrounding the several existing and alternative alignments. The natural environment, though not a pristine or wilderness area, in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains attracts hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Under current conditions operations and maintenance activities and construction activities have the potential to interrupt or disturb dispersed recreation at unofficial recreation areas and officially designated areas in the vicinity of the project on a temporary basis. Both types of activities alter sights, sounds and air quality (i.e., dust) associated with natural recreation settings (such as Majors Creek) where they occur. Construction impacts associated with trenching, directional drilling and the use of heavy equipment is expected to have significant but temporary impacts on recreation by preventing access and disrupting natural settings. Neither construction nor operations and maintenance activities would cause a permanent loss of recreation use. Neither would conflict

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-5 5.0 Recreation with existing plans and policies. These potential access- and natural setting-related impacts would be short-term and are expected to be less than significant with mitigation because the number of actual construction days is low in any one area (Table 2-1 Pipeline Construction Duration), and developed recreation facilities are limited in a large portion of the project area (TPL Coast Dairies property and western Wilder Ranch State Park) under current conditions. Should the lands be opened to public access and recreation prior to repair of the NCS, the number of users potentially impacted could be substantially greater.

Some of the alternatives could result in temporary impacts during construction. There could be access-related impacts to bicyclists along Highway 1, and surfers and birdwatchers desiring access to beaches along Highway 1. There also could be disruption of the recreation experiences of local residents who hike in the vicinity of the Majors reach, but these impacts would also be short-term.

No officially designated recreational facilities are found in the area of the proposed Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, and Majors Creek reaches, reach alternatives, or diversion facilities. With the exception of the Majors Creek reach, the construction and operation and maintenance of any of the proposed or alternative project facilities would not result in adverse impacts in the areas adjacent to the project reaches. The Coast Dairies Property and Majors Creek watershed in Wilder Ranch State Park are not currently open to recreation. However, it is anticipated that in the near future, the property would be open to hiking and other similar recreational activities. This is anticipated to occur within the 15- to 20-year implementation time frame of the proposed Project. Should such access facilitate increased recreation use, an unspecified, increased number of recreationists could be impacted by short-term disruption of access of areas they want to visit in the above mentioned reaches. Recreation experiences of local residents may be negatively affected by the sights and sounds of O&M or construction activities. However, all construction impacts would be short-term and could be mitigated to less than significant.

None of the proposed construction or O&M activities would result in a long-term prevention of recreation, nor would these activities conflict with existing recreation policies. However, long-term impacts could potentially occur from O&M activities, depending on the type of recreation experience sought. Design features could be implemented to minimize visual impacts that may occur. Design features may include placing the pipeline below ground where possible, preventing glare from the pipeline by using non-reflective materials when placed above ground, and placing pressure release valves in boxes to minimize noise and associated visual impact.

Official recreational facilities are found along eastern portions of the NCP Reach in Wilder Ranch State Park (near the park headquarters), at coastal areas (sections along Highway 1), and through several City-owned parks and preserve/open space areas (Figure 5-1). The proposed Project would disturb park areas along the existing alignment within the City of Santa Cruz. These include: Moore Creek Preserve, Arroyo Seco, and Harvey West Municipal Park. It also would temporarily disrupt access to some of the six beaches associated with Wilder State Park. However, impacts would be temporary and no park structures would be impacted. The pipeline does run through a corral in Wilder Ranch State Park. However, impacts would be temporary, and the corral would be replaced to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, impacts to these facilities are expected to be less than significant.

The proposed Project does not include plans for new recreational facilities or improvements, modifications, or expansion of any recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to conflict with or be incompatible with the objectives, policies, or guidance of the General Plan or state parks management. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 summarize the potential impacts to recreation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-6 5.0 Recreation

Public recreational opportunities are expected to expand substantially in the NCS project area in the next 20 years due the other resource management programs. However, the proposed Project would not provide or enable access to previously inaccessible, environmentally sensitive areas.

The proposed Project would not result in permanent alteration of any recreation resource. Therefore, the proposed Project is not expected to conflict with or be incompatible with the objectives, policies, or guidance of the County General Plan, State parks management, or TPL Coast Dairies resource management plans.

5.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the specific sites within the Project area. Potential impacts from construction and O&M activities are described for actions at each of the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches where impacts are anticipated to occur. Specific sites and associated alternatives are not discussed where potential impacts are not anticipated to occur.

Because there would be no planned construction under the No Project Alternative, no impacts related to construction would occur. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Recreation Impact R-1, Recreation Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Recreation Impact 1-1, Recreation Impact 1-2, etc.

5.5.1 Majors Diversion

5.5.1.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact M-1: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Under current conditions, the diversion location is not open to official recreational use. However, the surrounding Wilder Ranch State Park lands may be open to the public before this alternative is implemented, and there currently is some unofficial recreation use occurring in the vicinity of the Majors Reach. Construction activities at the diversion would likely require the establishment of an exclusion zone for safety purposes and construction traffic along the access road would likely disrupt and diminish recreational experiences on a temporary basis. Appropriate measures would be taken to minimize such unavoidable impacts.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts would be to implement the diversion repair construction before the area is opened for recreational use or during the construction of improvements for state park facilities. However, if this were not possible, implementation of Mitigation 5-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-7 5.0 Recreation

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact M-2: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of O&M activities.

Short-term, temporary impacts related to ongoing operations and maintenance would occur under this alternative.

Mitigation Measures: Timely dissemination of information about when and where O&M activities are expected to occur would reduce this impact to a less than significant level (Mitigation 5-2).

5.5.2 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

5.5.2.1 LID Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 1-1: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of O&M activities.

Short-term, temporary impacts related to ongoing operations and maintenance would occur under this alternative. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative.

5.5.2.2 LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 1-2: Short-term disruption of recreation, including use by local residents, could occur as a result of construction activities.

Currently, there is no public or recreational access to the Coast Dairies Property through which the Liddell Reach pipeline passes nor would the project result in impacts to any of the issues included in the CEQA checklist for recreation. There is some limited use via guided tours and permits for individual recreation use. If tours, individual use, or local use occur during the time construction occurs there could be short-term, temporary impacts. There also is some recreation use in this area by local residents.

Mitigation Measures: These potential impacts could be mitigated by timing any guided tours or permitted use to occur when construction activities are not occurring, and by notifying local residents when construction is to occur. Implementation of Mitigation 5-1 would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. However, this land would most likely support public access including potential trails and other recreational development within the 15- to 20-year implementation time frame.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 1-3: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis for local residents.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-8 5.0 Recreation

Long-term maintenance activities and the presence of the pipeline’s permanent structures would impact the natural vista of the property that many recreation seekers are there to enjoy. The pipeline would be placed below ground and within or immediately adjacent to the existing access road where possible. Additionally, opportunities for alternative pressure valve design and placement (including “at grade” would be explored. This would help to minimize the potential visual impact and physical constraints on recreational planning and activities. There would be a short-term disruption of use for local residents who recreate in this area that would occur over the long-term.

Mitigation Measures: Timely dissemination of information about when and where O&M activities are expected to occur would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level (Mitigation 5- 2).

5.5.2.3 LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 1-4: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Currently, there is no public or recreational access to the Coast Dairies Property through which the Liddell Reach pipeline passes nor would the project result in impacts to any of the issues included in the CEQA checklist for Recreation. However, this land would have public access including potential trails and other recreational development within the 15- to 20-year implementation time frame. Construction activities would result in a temporary impact to recreation should recreation use occur in an area where construction is occurring.

Mitigation Measures: Disseminating information about locations of construction activity, staging areas, and duration of construction periods for this pipeline reach would mitigate any short-term impacts that occur (Mitigation 5-1).

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 1-5: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis for local residents.

This alternative moves a short portion of pipeline out of the ravine and in/adjacent to the existing access road, which is already a disturbed area. Long-term maintenance activities and the presence of the pipeline permanent structures would impact the natural vista of the property that many recreation seekers are there to enjoy.

The pipeline would be placed below ground and within or immediately adjacent to the existing access road where possible. Additionally, opportunities for alternative pressure valve design and placement (including “at grade” would be explored to minimize the potential visual impact and physical constraints on recreational planning and activities. There would be short-term disruption of use for local residents who recreate in this area that would occur over the long term.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-9 5.0 Recreation

5.5.3 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

5.5.3.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 2-1: Short-term disruption of recreation, including use by local residents, could occur as a result of construction activities.

The majority of the land on the eastern side of the existing alignment is privately held for rural residential use. Land on the western side is almost exclusively part of the Coast Dairies Property. Depending on when the Coast Dairies Property is opened for recreation and the location of recreational trails, construction activities may impact recreation activities in the area, including recreation use by local residents. These impacts would be fairly small in scale affecting only a small portion of the property, and temporary.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts would be to implement the alignment construction before the area is opened for recreational use or during the construction of improvements for facilities. However, if this were not possible, implementation of Mitigation 5-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 2-2: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis for local residents.

5.5.3.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 2-3: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Recreational impacts associated with the alternative alignment would be restricted to temporary, construction-related impacts. Should the Coast Dairies Property be open to recreation when construction of the pipeline is to occur, then areas open to recreation may be temporarily closed and recreational experiences diminished due to views of the activities or related noise impacts. However, should construction occur before the Coast Dairies Property is open to recreation, there would be no construction impacts on recreational resources.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts would be to implement the alignment construction before the area is opened for recreational use or during the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-10 5.0 Recreation construction of improvements for facilities. However, if this were not possible, implementation of Mitigation 5-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 2-4: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis for local residents.

Residents who live in the area may have a diminished recreational experience over the long-term if design features are not implemented and the pipeline detracts from the natural landscape. O&M activities may temporarily disrupt recreation over the long-term. However, this alternative would potentially result in a lesser impact than the existing alternative, due to the alternative alignment being placed further away from private residents.

5.5.4 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

5.5.4.1 LAG Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 3-1: Short-term disruption of recreation, including use by local residents, could occur as a result of O&M activities.

Since there is some use of Laguna gorge by local residents there would be short-term, temporary impacts. Recreation experiences of local residents could be negatively affected, and access to desired recreation areas could be impeded. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative.

5.5.4.2 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 3-2: Short-term disruption of recreation, including use by local residents, could occur as a result of construction activities.

The last approximately 800 feet of the existing alignment is on the Coast Dairies Property. There would be short-term impacts to local residents who use this area for recreation. Future recreation on the Coast Dairies Property may be impacted in the short-term by construction activities in the area.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-11 5.0 Recreation

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 3-3: Short-term disruption of recreation, including use by local residents, could occur as a result of O&M activities.

No long-term impacts would occur because the O&M activities are already occurring along the existing alignment. Short-term, temporary impacts related to ongoing O&M activities would occur under this alternative. There would also be short-term impacts to local residents who use this area for recreation.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 would mitigate this potential impact to a less than significant level.

5.5.4.3 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 3-4: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

The last approximately 2,800 feet of the existing alignment is on the Coast Dairies Property. There would be short-term impacts to local residents who use this area for recreation. Future recreation may be impacted in the short-term by construction activities and in the long-term by permanent structures (i.e., pressure-relief valves and markers) and maintenance activities. These impacts would occur on the border of the property in areas unlikely to be used for trails due to the close proximity to private lands.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 3-5: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis.

Future recreation may be impacted in the long-term by permanent structures (i.e., pressure-relief valves and markers) and maintenance activities. These impacts would occur on the border of the property in areas unlikely to be used for trails due to the close proximity to private lands.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-12 5.0 Recreation

5.5.5 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

5.5.5.1 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-1: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

The existing alignment is located within Wilder Ranch State Park. While the area is currently not open to recreational activities, it is anticipated that trails and access would be provided in the near future. Therefore, access to this area could be disrupted temporarily during construction. However, implementation of the project prior to opening the area for official recreational use or during the development of state park facilities would likely reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-2: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

5.5.5.2 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-3: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts would be to implement the alignment construction before the area is opened for recreational use or during the construction of improvements for facilities. Implementation of Mitigation 5-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-13 5.0 Recreation

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-4: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis.

Long-term impacts could be associated with operations and maintenance of the pipeline. These impacts, while also associated with the existing alignment, would be more visible along the alternative alignment because they would be in more open areas. However, the visible pipeline features and operations and maintenance activities would likely occur along an existing disturbance in the park, and along the existing road. Additional information about visual impacts is found in Chapter 6 of this EIR.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts due to vegetation mowing or pipeline infrastructure maintenance would be to conduct vegetation controls in a nonlinear manner, thus minimizing visual impacts to recreation users. Also, vegetation and pipeline infrastructure maintenance could occur during lower-use times of the year when fewer visitors would be impacted. Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

5.5.5.3 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-5: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities

The alternate alignment would be located along a road within Wilder Ranch State Park. While the area is currently not open to recreational activities, it is anticipated that trails and access would be provided in the near future. Therefore, access to this area could be disrupted temporarily during construction. However, implementation of the project prior to opening the area for official recreational use or during the development of state park facilities would likely reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts would be to implement the alignment construction before the area is opened for recreational use or during the construction of improvements for facilities. Implementation of Mitigation 5-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 4-6: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis.

Long-term impacts could be associated with the pipeline. These impacts, while also associated with the existing alignment, would be more visible along the alternative alignment because they would occur in more open areas. However, the visible pipeline features and O&M activities would likely occur along an existing disturbance in the park, along the existing road. These impacts would potentially occur to a lesser degree than Alternative 3 because the pipeline would be placed along the road.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-14 5.0 Recreation

5.5.6 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

5.5.6.1 NCP Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 5-1: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of O&M activities.

Short-term, temporary impacts related to ongoing operations and maintenance would occur under this alternative. Access to some of the six beaches could be disrupted during O&M activities. There are no mitigation measures under this alternative.

5.5.6.2 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 5-2: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Construction along the NCP Reach has the potential to impact recreational activities on a short-term basis. Impacts along this reach would be the greatest among all reaches. The number of construction days is the highest, and the amount of recreation use is highest along this reach. Construction would potentially impact recreational opportunities in City parks (i.e., Moore Creek Preserve, Arroyo Seco, and Harvey West Regional Park), and at coastal access points to Fern Grotto, Sand Plant, Strawberry, Three mile, and Four mile beaches. Access to certain areas would be impeded by construction activities, equipment and materials staging, and construction crew parking.

Mitigation Measures: Provide timely notification of when and for how long construction activities would occur (see Mitigation 5-1). Implementation of this measure would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 5-3: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis.

Long-term impacts associated with ROW markers and periodic staff visits would occur as a result of ongoing O&M activities. However, these O&M activities are already occurring under current conditions and would not be expected to change from the environmental baseline.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts due to pipeline infrastructure maintenance (ROW marker maintenance and staff visits) would be to practice

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-15 5.0 Recreation maintenance during lower-use times of the year (or day) when fewer visitors would be impacted, and to notify recreation users in advance of when and for how long O&M activities would occur. Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

5.5.6.3 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 5-4: Short-term disruption of recreation could occur as a result of construction activities.

Temporary closure of the bicycle path between High Street and Evergreen Street would likely occur. Such impacts would include temporary disruption of user access during construction, but would likely result in a less than significant impact, which would not require any mitigation measures. However, there would be no disruption of activities at Harvey West Municipal Park, since the alternate alignment would not traverse this park.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Recreation Impact 5-5: Operations and maintenance activities could disrupt recreation activities on a long-term basis.

Long-term impacts associated with ROW markers and periodic staff visits would occur as a result of ongoing O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: The simplest form of mitigation for recreational impacts due to pipeline infrastructure maintenance (ROW marker maintenance and staff visits) would be to conduct maintenance during lower-use times of the year (or day) when fewer visitors would be impacted, and to notify recreation users in advance of when and for how long O&M activities would occur. Implementation of Mitigation 5-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

5.5.7 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 5-1: To minimize impacts related to temporary construction activities potentially affecting recreation use within the Project area, the following measures shall be included in the construction plan.

• To minimize impacts to any future, increased recreation use, implement pipeline construction along the Liddell and Majors reaches before these areas are opened for recreational use.

• To address impacts associated with current recreation use (such as surfing and general beach recreation), implement construction activities during times of low usage in an attempt to avoid peak use times of the year (e.g., peak summer and winter periods).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-16 5.0 Recreation

• Disseminate information about locations of construction activity, staging areas, and duration of construction periods for each pipeline reach. This should include posting signs in the vicinity of the construction area and staging areas in advance of construction. It also should include posting information on the City of Santa Cruz website, as well as other websites (e.g., Chamber of Commerce) that feature information about outdoor recreation opportunities in the Santa Cruz area. Offer information about alternate locations for recreation activities.

• Establish an exclusion zone for safety purposes during construction.

Mitigation 5-2: To minimize impacts related to short-term and long-term O&M activities, the following measures shall be implemented.

• To minimize impacts associated with current recreation use (such as surfing and general beach recreation), conduct O&M activities during times of low usage in an attempt to avoid peak use times of the year (e.g., peak summer and winter periods).

• Establish an exclusion zone for safety purposes during O&M activities.

• Notify potential recreation users in advance about planned O&M activities and their duration.

Table 5-3 compares impacts among project alternatives. The lowest level of impact, as measured by thresholds of significance, would occur in reach 1. The number of construction days is lowest, there are no officially designated recreation facilities in this area, and there is not any known recreation use occurring by local residents, or others. In contrast the highest level of impact is associated with pipeline Reach 5 along Highway 1. There would be more than 200 days of construction under this alternative. Presence of staging areas, heavy equipment, and construction traffic would on some days prevent access to the beach. However, these impacts would be temporary and could be mitigated to a less than significant level by providing timely information about where and for how long construction would occur.

5.5.8 Effects Found to be Not Significant Temporary closure of the bicycle path between High Street and Evergreen Street would likely occur. The effects of pipeline construction on bicycle use between High Street and Evergreen Street would be less than significant because construction would be of a short duration.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 5-17

6.0 Aesthetic Resources

6.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter addresses visual quality issues related to the proposed Project. Regulatory considerations related to visual resources are summarized. The existing visual character of the Project area is described, and potentially sensitive visual resources are identified. Visual impacts are then assessed by estimating the amount of visual changes to the basic visual resource components—water, landform, vegetation, and engineered elements—as a result of the proposed Project. Within this context, the visual changes are evaluated in terms of the degree to which they may be visible to surrounding viewers (e.g., foreground, middle ground, and background), and the general sensitivity of viewers to landscape alterations.

6.2 Regulatory Considerations

6.2.1 State Regulations The California Coastal Act of 1976 has visual resource preservation provisions (Section 30251) that protect the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas as a resource of public importance. Permitted development is required to be sited and designed to protect views to, and along, the ocean and scenic coastal areas, and where feasible to restore and enhance quality of visually degraded areas (California Public Resources Code 1999).

Several sections of the California Government Code pertain to “scenic areas” and provide for their protection along features such as highways, rivers, and parks. Specifically, Section 260 (Streets and Highways Code, State Scenic Highway) states that, “it is the intent of the Legislature in designating certain portions of the state highway system as state scenic highways to establish the state’s responsibility for the protection and enhancement of California's natural scenic beauty by identifying those portions of the state highway system which, together with the adjacent scenic corridors, require special scenic conservation treatment.”

California Public Resources Code 5093.50 states that “it is the policy of the State of California that certain rivers which possess extraordinary scenic, recreational, fishery, or wildlife values shall be preserved in their free-flowing state, together with their immediate environments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people of the state.”

California Public Resources Code 5019.50 states that, “the purpose of state parks shall be to preserve outstanding natural, scenic, and cultural values…” Under CEQA, significance criteria or threshold is identified for the following items for a visual resource. The impact of the Project is either less than significant impact or no impact based on the following.

(1) It would not create a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.

(2) It would not create substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

(3) It would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-1 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

(4) It would not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

6.2.2 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County’s General Plan (1994) includes policies for the protection of visual resources of the county. Designations capture visual resource types such as public vistas, ocean vistas, and agricultural vistas in the county. These resources are protected through limiting development density and land use. The General Plan also lists state highways and county roads with scenic vistas that are valued by the county and are protected. One of the significant resources designated is the Majors Creek Canyon in the Bonny Doon Planning Areas where “the cliffs and exposed rocks of this canyon to the east of Highway 1 are outstanding scenic features.”

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors found that the trees and forest communities located within the county’s Coastal Zone are a valuable resource. Removal of significant trees could reduce scenic beauty and the attractiveness of the area to residents and visitors. Therefore, a timber harvest permit shall be obtained from the county if timber harvesting of greater than 3 aerial-acres in extent should occur.

The General Plan for the City of Santa Cruz (as adopted 1994) describes the Coastal Act policies and issue areas, including visual resources that are relevant to coastal planning and the issuance of coastal permits within the city. Visual resource issues focus upon the protection of 1) coastal views and visual quality, 2) highly scenic coastal areas, 3) developing land use designations that would protect scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas, and 4) developing uniform sign and design criteria. The General Plan also identifies natural scenic resources valued and protected by the city. Areas of open agricultural or grazing lands surround the city. The Project route crosses areas within the city that have general scenic resources that range in topography, land use intensity, and open space designation.

6.3 Existing Visual Resource Conditions

6.3.1 Project Area The Project area is situated in the northern coast of Santa Cruz County. The entire Project area falls within the Coastal Zone, which encompasses land south and west of Empire Grade to the Pacific Ocean (Figure 3-2). The route for the proposed Project covers an area that ranges from the rural, forested areas on the western drainage of Ben Lomond Mountain and marine terraces to the developed urban setting of the City of Santa Cruz. It includes Project sites and surrounding lands that would be directly in sight of Project components or would interact with or be influenced by aesthetics of the Project components. The pipeline has five reaches (Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and North Coast Pipeline Reach) that pass through the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz. Numerous scenic resources, such as landscape features, vista points, and built features contribute to an existing positive visual experience. The major visual components in the Project area along each of the pipeline reaches are represented in the photos presented in Appendix A. These visual features include existing dirt roads through forested and coastal chaparral (Photos A5, A6, A9, A17, A36 and A44), riparian habitat and stream crossings (Photos A4, A7, A8, A14, A18, A19, A21, A25, A31, A32, A33, A37, A43, A47, A49), meadows and hills (Photos A20, A22, A23, A38, A39, A48, A50, A51, A52), and view along Scenic Highway 1 (Photos A-38 – A44), residences within the City of Santa Cruz (Photos A54 and A55).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-2 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

6.3.2 Project Area Landscape Features The coastal slope of the Santa Cruz Mountains is a highly valued viewshed. This is reflected in the efforts to protect these lands from commercial and large-scale residential development and the large proportion of the Project area that has been protected through outright purchase (e.g., Wilder Ranch State Park, Coast Dairies Property, Moore Creek Preserve) or conservation easements (e.g., Antonelli Pond on Moore Creek). Additionally, Caltrans has designated portions of Highway 1 as a scenic route, and the county has designated Smith Grade Road as a scenic route. The Project area offers views of a variety of coastal forest habitats, coastal marine terraces and prairie plains, and panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay. Often the most striking views in this area arise from the transition from one vegetation type to another.

Currently, much of the Project area is not accessible to the public. However, it is anticipated that large portions of the Project area would be opened to public access for recreation (e.g., hiking, horseback riding, biking, and camping) in the near future. These lands include the East Branch of Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek watershed, and portions of the Laguna Creek watershed, which are part of the approximately 7,000-acre Coast Dairies Property owned by the TPL. These lands are in the process of being transferred to the California Department of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Agri-Culture, a nonprofit agency closely affiliated with the Santa Cruz Farm Bureau. The Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Management and Use Plan calls for public access to the interior of the Coast Dairies property 10 years from the date of complete conveyance to the BLM and State Parks Department (ESA 2004). Several of the existing access roads that make up components of the existing ROW or are components of the alternative alignments are proposed to recreation trails at full access implementation. Wilder Ranch State Park encompasses 6,000 acres extending from Majors Creek to the Moore Creek Preserve at the city limits. The park extends from the upper marine terraces to the shoreline encompassing former grazing lands and current agricultural lands.

6.3.3 Significant Visual Features, Scenic Corridors, and Public Views/Vistas Water sources for most of the Project area are located in steep and heavily forested drainage basins with redwoods and mature trees of other species (e.g., tan oak, coast live oak, and Douglas fir) on the west slopes of Ben Lomond Mountain. In part, due to limited and sparse development in recent decades, these areas retain much of their natural appearance. As the pipeline progresses toward the Pacific Ocean coastline, the topography graduates to rolling hills of coastal prairie and marine terraces. Santa Cruz County limits development in these areas to agriculture and recreation/open space, which preserves views of the foothills and the Pacific Ocean coastline. After the Laguna/Liddell and Majors reaches join the NCP, it generally follows along the route of Highway 1 south and east to the city. The coastline and agricultural fields visually dominate this segment.

The sand quarry, an inholding on the Wilder Ranch State Park property, is screened with landscaping and not readily visible from Highway 1. Rural agricultural and coastal recreation access points dominate the scenery until the pipeline crosses the city-county boundary. Within the city limits, the existing pipeline route crosses a typical urban landscape with residential, park/open space, commercial, and light industrial areas.

6.3.4 Scenic Roads County scenic roads in the Project area include State Highway 1. The segment of Highway 1 in Santa Cruz County is listed as an eligible, though not officially designated, State Scenic Highway. This

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-3 6.0 Aesthetic Resources segment of Highway 1 affords views of the Pacific Ocean coastline, rural agricultural development, and mountain hillside views. Scenic county roads crossed by the Project route include Smith Grade. Smith Grade provides views of wooded forests and a rural setting with limited development.

6.3.5 Visual Conditions along the Existing Alignment The Liddell Reach (Reach 1) is approximately 10,000 feet in length and mostly passes through redwood, riparian, and coastal coyote brush scrub habitat on the TPL property (Appendix A Photos A1 – A9). Due to its remote location and the fact that much of the pipeline is buried or overgrown, most sections of the pipeline are not visible to recreationists or residents living in or near the Project area. The Laguna/Liddell Reach (Reach 2) is approximately 5,900 feet in length (Appendix A Photos A22 – A26). Most of the pipeline is below ground except at stream crossings. As a result, the majority of the pipeline in this reach is not visible. However, vegetation maintenance (semi-annual mowing) creates linear features in meadow and grassland, coastal prairie areas.

The Laguna Reach (Reach 3) is approximately 13,000 feet in length (Appendix A, A13 – A21). Initially it follows Smith Grade Road for about 1,300 feet. The section that follows Smith Grade Road is below grade and is not visible to residents or others using this road, or to residents living along the road. The Laguna pipeline runs from Smith Grade road to Y Creek (12,780 feet) across several private properties through the Laguna Creek Gorge. The Majors Creek Reach (Reach 4) is approximately 11,000 feet long (Appendix A Photos A31 - A38). The first 2,000 feet of the pipeline passes through a riparian corridor, and is not readily visible. The second section of this reach (2,000- 8,000 feet) passes through forested slopes in Majors Creek Canyon and is not readily visible. The last section of the Majors reach pipeline crosses a marine terrace on Wilder Ranch State Park lands.

The Wilder Ranch State Park has approximately 6,000 acres, with 34 miles of hiking, biking and equestrian trails winding through coastal terraces and valleys (California State Parks 2003). However, none of these established trails are within one mile of the existing pipeline alignment. During much of the year, the pipeline is not visible due to the height of surrounding vegetation. However, following mowing activities (usually twice a year) the pipeline ROW is highly visible to anyone within one- quarter mile of the ROW. The NCP Reach (Reach 5) is approximately 44,252 feet long and follows Highway 1 from Laguna Creek to the City of Santa Cruz Coast Pump Station on the San Lorenzo River (Appendix A Photos A39 – A55). Portions of the pipeline are visible along Highway 1, in Wilder Ranch State Park and in the Moore Creek Preserve. In the urban areas on the north side of High Street the pipeline passes diagonally through a residential neighborhood passing beneath many residential properties. The pressure relief valves extend several feet above the ground surface and are a notable visual feature (Appendix A, Photo A-53).

Moore Creek Preserve, which is also traversed by the pipeline, features high-quality wildlife habitat, including wildflower fields, coastal prairie, rare examples of coast live oak, and riparian forest. A number of rare, threatened, and endangered wildlife and plant species inhabit the property, including the California red-legged frog, Ohlone tiger beetle, and the San Francisco popcorn flower. The preserve offers hiking trails through open meadows with scenic views of Monterey Bay (City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation Department 2002).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-4 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

6.4 Potential Visual Resources Impacts

6.4.1 Thresholds of Significance The impact analysis presents the standards used to evaluate impacts to visual quality and addresses potential effects of the proposed Project on the visual quality of the area. The evaluation of potential impacts is based on the alternative’s potential to alter the visual character of the Project area. In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on visual resources if it results in any of the following.

• Substantial damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along Highway 1 (Evaluation Criterion 1);

• Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive location is obstructed or adversely affected or if the scale or degree of change appears as a substantial, obvious, or disharmonious modification of the overall view (Evaluation Criterion 2);

• Prevent or substantially impair the view from a sensitive location for the duration of construction of the Project (Evaluation Criterion 3); or

• Prevent or substantially impair the view from a sensitive location or private property during or following maintenance activities.

6.4.2 Impact Methodology Assessing impacts to visual resources involved two steps. The first step was to determine whether any locations within the Project area were considered highly sensitive to visual impacts. Highly sensitive locations include: residences along Smith Grade Road, Back Ranch Road, Laguna Creek Road and the ridge west of Laguna Creek; and public access areas such as Wilder Ranch State Park access/parking areas along Highway 1, hiking trails and recreation areas within Wilder Ranch State Park, and hiking trails within Moore Creek Preserve, and residential properties through which the pipeline passes within the City of Santa Cruz are also considered sensitive locations.

The second step involved determining visual sensitivity of Project actions for these sensitive viewpoints. Visual sensitivity was determined by qualitatively estimating 1) the duration that construction or pipeline O&M activities may be viewed, 2) the length of each pipeline reach that may be viewed, and 3) if any Project actions would cause substantial damage to scenic resources such as rock outcroppings, trees, or mature residential landscaping.

Visual impact analyses were guided by the following assumptions.

(1) For all reaches, the pipeline itself is only viewable from a maximum distance of one-quarter mile. However, following mowing operations the pipeline ROW may be viewable up to one mile.

(2) The staging areas along Highway 1 would be used periodically for the duration of the construction efforts for all sections of pipeline.

(3) Some portion (estimated at one-quarter mile) of the pipeline on the Majors Reach is viewable from Highway 1 and other vistas during construction and following mowing.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-5 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

(4) Some portion of the pipeline along the NCP reach is viewable from Highway 1 and Wilder Ranch State Park at all times.

(5) Visual impacts may occur in sensitive habitat areas that do not provide scenic/panoramic vistas, but where the change is intrusive.

6.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The existing pipeline is a permanent visible feature along Highway 1 and at close range in a number of areas along Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Y Creek, Laguna Creek, and Majors Creek. The Project would have short-term, long-term, and permanent impacts on the viewshed associated with construction of the pipeline and its operation and maintenance. The long-term and permanent impacts would be subtle, but may detract from the aesthetic enjoyment of the environment for a few visitors or residents that notice particular sections of the pipeline, pump station, or diversion structure associated with the pipeline. Potential impacts associated with the Project are outlined below. Replacement of the existing pipeline is expected to occur over a period of 15 to 20 years as funding becomes available and permits are secured. This means that the Project area would be visually impacted on a periodic basis during this time period.

Short-term impacts would be associated with:

• Use of staging areas for equipment and materials storage and transport.

• Use of local roads for equipment and materials transport.

• Alteration of natural landforms, vegetation, and/or mature residential landscaping as a result of trenching, grading, and drilling activities.

• Implementation of wildlife habitat or landscape restoration.

Long-term impacts on aesthetic values may result from:

• The repeated occupation of primary staging areas that may fall within the sensitive viewing locations for rural residences or in areas where public access for recreation may develop in the near future.

• Mowing operations along sections of the pipeline can create a strong linear feature (e.g., across the lower marine terrace.

• Above ground pipeline features that will create a permanent potentially visible feature in or near an aesthetically sensitive area (e.g., upper marine terraces).

The City manages vegetation along the pipeline ROW to allow for easy access for monitoring and repair when necessary. Historically, the ROW has been mowed in the annual grassland and coyote brush scrub habitat areas (see Figures 9-1 through 9-3). Within the forested areas, access is difficult and the terrain is too steep for mowing. When feasible and/or necessary, the pipeline ROW is cleared using hand tools. To the extent possible, the pipeline would be replaced within or adjacent to existing roadways, which is expected to reduce the need for vegetation control. However, in those areas where mowing is required, an artificial break in vegetation composition and pattern would exist. These breaks are often a straight line that is not visually consistent with the lay of the land (topographical

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-6 6.0 Aesthetic Resources features) or vegetation composition and patterns. This may detract from the enjoyment of the viewshed by some current and future residents and recreation users.

The pipeline would be buried below ground in most of the open areas where it would be otherwise readily visible. The pipeline route would be marked at fairly regular intervals with the required white and blue plastic stakes. These stakes are approximately 3 feet high and 3 inches wide. The pipeline would also require pressure relief valves at high points along the pipeline. Opportunities for alternative pressure valve design and placement (including “at grade”) would be explored and applied where feasible. In areas where cattle graze, above ground pressure relief valves may be required. The presence of these features, although relatively unobtrusive, may detract from the aesthetic enjoyment of the environment for some residents and recreation users.

The extent to which visual impacts of construction of various reaches will impair a viewshed will be dependent upon the status of public access to the TPL land and western portion of Wilder Ranch State Park. Currently public recreation is not allowed in most of this area. Should these areas be open to public use prior to pipeline construction the visual impacts of construction equipment, staging areas, and construction activity will be experienced by a substantially greater number of users. Public access will also increase the number of people that will access vista points or travel along or cross the pipeline ROW and take note of visual impacts associated with permanent features such as above ground pipeline segments, pump stations, pipeline delineation stakes, pressure relief valves, and vegetation maintenance. This is particularly true on the Majors Reach where three tiers of marine terraces provide high quality vistas.

Tables 6-1 and 6-2 summarize the potential impacts to aesthetic resources in the Project area.

6.4.4 Staging Area Impacts Project construction for the three diversions and five pipeline reaches would occur over a 15 to 20 year period. It is anticipated that one or more primary staging areas along the Highway 1 corridor would be used repeatedly over the life of the Project. The staging areas along Highway 1 would include heavy equipment for the duration of the construction period (estimated at 25 to 50 days) for individual reaches. The use of the staging area would not damage visual resources along Highway 1 such as trees or rock outcrops. The use of the staging area would not permanently alter the site so that sensitive viewing locations or travel routes are obstructed or adversely affected (Evaluation Criterion 2). However, the presence of construction equipment would result in minor visual impacts because some viewers may have their views from Highway 1 prevented or substantially impaired for some portion of the construction period (Evaluation Criterion 3). To the extent possible, primary staging areas would be sited where they are visually screened from Highway 1 and to the extent possible from upgradient vista points. For example, if room is available at the City of Santa Cruz Resource Conservation Facility off of Highway 1, this would pose little or no visual impact because heavy equipment is used there on a daily basis and the facility is set back from Highway 1.

Smaller secondary staging areas would be used to support construction on specific reaches and diversions. To the extent possible these staging areas would be sited at locations that are not readily visible from local residences and roads. Should the TPL land or western portion of Wilder Ranch State Park be opened to public recreation these smaller staging areas and associated construction traffic would become visible to recreation users. Visual impacts would likely occur during construction and the staging area restoration process. It is anticipated that with implementation of appropriate impact minimization and mitigation measures these impacts would be reduced and would be short-term. Mitigation measures 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-5 and 6-6 are recommended to minimize staging area visual impacts.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-7 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

6.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts on scenic quality resulting from construction and O&M activities for the specific reaches within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. Specific sites and associated alternatives are discussed only where potential impacts are anticipated to occur. If an alternative at a specific site is not expected to result in potential impacts, then it is not discussed below, except where distinct contrast between two alternatives is noted.

Because there would be no planned construction under Alternative 1 (No Project), no impacts related to construction would occur. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required for construction activities.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Aesthetic Impact R-1, Aesthetic Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Aesthetic Impact 1-1, Aesthetic Impact 1-2, etc.

6.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

6.5.1.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 2-1: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired by construction activities.

Construction along the existing alignment would require trenching through two meadows, one on each side of Laguna Creek, and trimming or removal of mature riparian trees and under growth at the stream crossings and along Laguna Creek between pipeline distance 4,000 and 5,200 feet. These visual impacts would be short-term, but would be experienced by local residents and potentially recreational users during the construction period and during the restoration of habitat conditions. Removal of mature trees, if required, would have a longer-term impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 6-4 and 6-5 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 2-2: Views could be substantially impaired by mowing activities.

Historically the pipeline has been mowed semiannually for vegetation control through the two meadows and along Laguna Creek from pipeline distance 4,000 to 5,200 feet.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 6-7 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-8 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

6.5.1.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

This alternative is expected to have no significant visual impacts because the pipeline would be placed in an existing road. There would be no construction in sensitive habitats and the construction period would be substantially shorter than for Alternative 2 along the existing ROW.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

This alternative is expected to have no significant visual impacts associated with the presence of the pipeline in the existing access road or related O&M activities.

6.5.2 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

6.5.2.1 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 3-1: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

Construction activity along the pipeline alignment would result in a potentially significant impact because there are residents that regularly use Smith Grade Road. These residents would be able to view construction activities on a regular basis for a substantial portion of the estimated duration of construction (47 days).

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 6-6 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

6.5.2.2 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 3-2: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

Construction along the private residential road and across the ridge top would create a short-term visual impact while equipment and crews trench and construct the pipeline. This is expected to have a significant visual impact due to the close proximity of the road to the resident’s homes and the remoteness of the area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-1 through 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 3-3: Views could be impaired by the placement of permanent features visible from a sensitive viewing site.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-9 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

Construction of the pipeline along the ridge residential road, running the length of the “Meadow” and then down the southern end of the ridge to the “Y” would result in a visual impairment associated with the following features. The water pipeline alignment would be permanently marked with the required white and blue stakes (3 feet tall and 3 inches wide). The pipeline would have pressure relief valves in at grade boxes or would be located above ground depending upon the requirements of the Department of Health Services. Fencing along the roadway may be necessary to protect the pressure relief valves from damage by cattle. It is anticipated that the local residents would regard these permanent features as significant visual impacts.

The pipeline would be constructed from the southern tip of the ridge down the slope to the “Y”. This is likely to result in a permanent above ground feature to control for soil slippage and or a pipeline segment that would require semi-annual mowing. These features would be visible from the Bierman residence and would be visible by recreation users on the TPL land. It is anticipated that the local residents would regard these permanent features as significant visual impacts.

6.5.3 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

6.5.3.1 MAJ Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-1: Short-term visual impacts could occur as a result of ongoing mowing activities.

Under this alternative there would be potentially significant impacts following mowing operations. After mowing, under existing conditions the pipeline alignment has a strong linear appearance that contrast with the surrounding natural landforms on the lower marine terrace. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative.

6.5.3.2 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-2: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for some of the construction period.

Some portions of the Majors Reach on the lower marine terraces are visible from Highway 1. The presence of construction equipment would result in minor visual impacts because some viewers may have their views from Highway 1 prevented or substantially impaired for some portion of the construction period (Evaluation Criterion 3).

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-1 through 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Aesthetic Impact 4-3: Views could be substantially altered or impaired during the construction period.

Should the western portion of Wilder Ranch State Park be opened to public recreation prior to the construction of the pipeline, then construction activity along the existing reach may substantially alter

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-10 6.0 Aesthetic Resources and impair views of sensitive habitat areas during the construction period. Construction activities would be most readily visible along the lower marine terrace.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-4, 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-4: Short-term and long-term visual impacts could occur as a result of mowing activities.

O&M activities along the existing pipeline are not expected to change substantively following replacement of the pipe in the existing alignment. Most O&M activities would not result in a significant impact due to their relatively short duration (assumed to be 1-3 days for a given reach). However, mowing the pipeline ROW along the lower marine terrace would result in a potentially significant impact for a short duration following mowing. After mowing, the pipeline alignment would have a strong linear appearance that would contrast with the surrounding natural landforms and may result in a long-term visual impact after several years.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation 6-9 (trail development) may be effective on the lower marine terrace, but is not recommended on the upper or mid-level marine terraces where existing roads provide access trails. Further, the pipeline in this alternative would be located to make it as inconspicuous as possible.

6.5.3.3 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-2: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for some of the construction period.

See Subsection 6.5.3.2. Potential construction impacts along the lower marine terrace are similar to those associated with the existing alignment. Similar visual construction impacts are anticipated along portions of the upper marine terrace for this alignment. Visual impacts on the upper terrace would be minimized by placing the pipeline below grade along the transition between the coastal prairie plain and forested slope habitats.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-1 through 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-5: Short-term visual impacts could occur as a result of mowing activities.

O&M activities along the existing pipeline are not expected to change substantively following replacement of the pipe in the Ridge Top alignment. Most O&M activities would not result in a significant impact due to their relatively short duration (assumed to be 1-3 days for a given reach). However, mowing the pipeline ROW along the section closest to Highway 1 and on the lower, middle and upper marine terraces would result in a potentially significant impact for a short duration following mowing. After mowing, the pipeline alignment would have a strong linear appearance that

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-11 6.0 Aesthetic Resources would contrast with the surrounding natural landforms and may result in a long-term visual impact after several years.

This alignment would be located on the ridge top along the transition zone between the forested canyon and the marine terrace grassland on the upper and middle marine terraces. Impacts along the lower marine terrace are not expected to result in visual impacts that differ significantly from those associated with the existing pipeline. Visual impacts associated with mowing and the presence of above ground pipeline features (e.g., pressure relief values and delineation stakes) would occur along this alternative alignment on the upper and lower marine terraces from pipeline distance 1,000 to 7,000 feet, and 9,500 to 11,000 feet.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-7 and 6-8 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. Mitigation 6-9 (trail development) may be effective on the lower marine terrace, but is not recommended on the upper or mid-level terraces where existing roads provide trail access. On the upper terrace, the pipeline would be located to make it as inconspicuous as possible.

6.5.3.4 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-1: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for some of the construction period.

Same as above. The majority of the pipeline in Majors Creek Canyon and on the marine terraces would be constructed below grade in the existing access road to minimize the need for vegetation mowing and creation of an additional linear feature. This alternative would utilize approximately one- half of the existing ROW on the lower marine terrace from the point where the existing road and ROW intersect to the junction of the Majors and NCP reaches.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-1 through 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would potentially reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 4-4: Short-term visual impacts could occur as a result of mowing activities.

This alignment would be located within the existing access road and would cross much of the lower marine terrace. O&M activities along the existing pipeline are not expected to change substantively following replacement of the pipe in existing alignment and most O&M activities would not result in a significant impact due to their relatively short duration (assumed to be 1-3 days for a given reach). However, mowing the pipeline ROW along the lower marine terrace would result in a potentially significant impact for a short duration following mowing. After mowing, the pipeline alignment would have a strong linear appearance that would contrast with the surrounding natural landforms and may result in a long-term visual impact after several years.

Visual impacts associated with mowing and the presence of above ground pipeline features (e.g., pressure relief values and delineation stakes) would occur along this alternative alignment on the lower marine terrace from pipeline distance 9,500 to 11,000 feet.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-12 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-7 and 6-8 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

6.5.4 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP The NCP Reach Alternative 2 and 3 would be identical and constructed along the existing ROW from pipeline distance 0 to 38,000 feet. The Alternative 2 Existing Alignment would stay within the existing ROW and pass through private properties in a residential area. Alternative 3 (Alternate Alignment) would route the pipeline down High Street and follow surface streets and a bike path to the Coast Pump Station.

6.5.4.1 NCP Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 5-1: Short-term visual impacts could occur as a result of mowing activities.

Under this alternative, there would be potentially significant impacts following mowing operations. After mowing, the pipeline alignment would have a strong linear appearance that would contrast with the surrounding natural landforms in portions of Wilder Ranch State Park and through Moore Creek Preserve (pipeline distance 22,500 to 27,000 feet and 29,000 to 31,500 feet). Significant visual impacts associated with mowing and vegetation control are not expected to occur along the NCP Reach immediately adjacent to Highway 1 (pipeline distance 0 to 22,500 feet) because the pipeline ROW pass through disturbed lands associated with agriculture, existing dirt roads and other land uses. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-7 and 6-8 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

6.5.4.2 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 5-2: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

Construction equipment and activities would be readily visible from Highway 1 and vista points along the marine terraces in Wilder Ranch State Park, as well as from some local residences. It is anticipated that such views maybe substantially impaired for some portion of the 201-day construction period (Evaluation Criterion 3).

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-1, 6-4, 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 (below) would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant.

Aesthetic Impact 5-3: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

Construction along the existing alignment between pipeline distance 38,000 and 40,000 feet would pass through and between private, urban residential properties in the City of Santa Cruz that were constructed well after the pipeline was in place. Construction through this area would significantly

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-13 6.0 Aesthetic Resources disrupt private yards and established landscaping impairing the aesthetic values of the property owner’s yards.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 6-5 and 6-11 (below) would minimize the duration and severity of this potentially significant impact.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 5-4: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired by ongoing operations and maintenance activities.

O&M activities along the NCP Alternative 2 – existing alignment do not differ from existing conditions. No mitigation measures are proposed.

6.5.4.3 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 5-2: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

The Construction-related Aesthetic Impact 5-2 associated with Alternative 3 is identical to those for Alternative 2. The same mitigation measures 6-4, 6-5, 6-8 and 6-9 would apply.

Aesthetic Impact 5-3: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired for the duration of the construction period.

The High Street alternative avoids the visual impacts to the residences along the existing ROW (38,000 to 40,000 feet) by rerouting the pipeline. The alternative ROW places the pipeline below ground in existing surface streets and a bike path. No adverse visual impacts are associated with this alternative routing of the pipeline.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Aesthetic Impact 5-4: Views could be prevented or substantially impaired by ongoing operations and maintenance activities.

O&M activities along the NCP Alternative 3 – High Street do not differ from existing conditions for pipeline distance 0 to 38,000 feet. No mitigation measures are proposed.

6.5.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 6-1: For construction activities in high visibility areas that may impact high value vistas, visual screening shall be in place prior to the summer recreation season. The summer season is typically the peak season for recreation use. Therefore, implementing impact minimization measures prior to this time period (June through August) would minimize the number of visitors affected by construction activities.

Mitigation 6-2: The presence of construction equipment at staging areas can detract from the more desirable features of the natural landscape. Therefore, to the extent possible, select staging areas that are screened from view by natural features of the landscape.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-14 6.0 Aesthetic Resources

Mitigation 6-3: At the primary staging areas that would receive repeated use, plant native trees and shrubs to visually screen the site. These areas have high potential to detract from the desirable features of the natural landscape since these areas are the largest and will be used for a greater amount of time out of all staging areas.

Mitigation 6-4: Conduct construction in meadow and riparian habitat areas during the late summer and early fall to avoid wet soil conditions and minimize impacts to flowering plants, and minimize the construction foot print by using the smallest equipment suitable for the job.

Mitigation 6-5: Initiate and complete vegetation restoration immediately upon completing construction.

Mitigation 6-6: Place secondary staging areas away from residential areas and complete construction along residential access roads as quickly as possible.

Mitigation 6-7: For all mowing activities, mow short discontinuous sections of the pipeline ROW, or mow the ROW using curved lines. Standard visual impact analysis approaches consider straight lines to be the worst possible visual impact because they produce a higher level of contrast with the natural environment compared to curved lines.

Mitigation 6-8: For sections of the pipeline viewable from sensitive viewing areas, plant rapid growing native vegetation to screen the pipeline. As stated for Mitigation 6-2, straight lines, such as pipelines, create the most readily notable visual impact.

Mitigation 6-9: Where the buried pipeline traverses an open marine terrace it may be possible to develop this linear feature as a recreational trail along the mowed pipeline ROW. This has a net benefit by limiting recreational habitat disturbance to an area that is already disturbed and by creating a more visually acceptable feature.

Mitigation 6-10: Glare from the pipeline can detract from the more desirable features of the natural landscape. Where the pipeline is placed above ground, it should be constructed from or covered with non-reflective materials.

Mitigation 6-11: The construction footprint through residential properties should be as small as possible. Established landscaping should be photographed, then extracted and set aside for replanting (to the extent possible) following construction. Where landscape is not suitable for this treatment landscaping should be replaced in kind immediately following completion of construction.

6.5.6 Effects Found to be Not Significant Less than significant impacts are anticipated for some alternatives in the Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, and Laguna reaches. Most of the construction and O&M activities that would occur would result in less than significant impacts because they would occur in areas that are not sensitive viewing areas, nor do they permanently alter views from sensitive viewing areas. In the first three reaches, much of the new pipeline would be buried so that even in sensitive viewing areas the pipeline would not be viewable. These potential impacts would be somewhat greater if construction were to occur after the Coast Dairies property was open to public recreation (see also Recreation Section 5.0).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 6-15

7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This section summarizes the geologic setting, including a description of potential paleontological resources, soil conditions, and mineral resources in the Project area. The proposed Project area includes five distinct pipeline reaches (Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and the NCP). The entire 16-mile-long pipeline repair project is located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. The pipeline crosses 14 defined watersheds and traverses lands held by both public and private entities (ENTRIX 2002a).

7.2 Regulatory Considerations

7.2.1 County Regulations Santa Cruz County General Plan – Section 6.1 of the General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994a) requires a review of geologic hazards for all discretionary development projects in designated fault zones. Such a review could include a geologic hazards assessment. All new public facilities must be designed to withstand the expected ground shaking during an earthquake on the San Andreas Fault.

Sections 6.2.10 through 6.2.13 (Santa Cruz County 1994a) require all developments to be sited to avoid coastal geologic hazards, a full geologic report for all development activities within 100 feet of a coastal bluff, setbacks from coastal bluffs, and exceptions for foundation replacements. Section 6.3 (Santa Cruz County 1994a) sets out the erosion control requirements and includes specific restrictions and management practices, including slope restrictions, grading and drainage requirements, erosion control plans, and land clearing permits.

7.3 Existing Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Conditions

7.3.1 Geology and Geologic Hazards This section summarizes the geologic setting and associated geologic hazards of the Project area. Unless otherwise noted, the following description of the regional geologic setting is based on information obtained from the following sources: Environmental Science Associates (2001), Norris and Webb (1990), and Brabb (1997).

The Project area is located in the Coast Ranges geomorphic province. This northwest-trending, 900- mile-long province contains mountain ranges and associated intervening valleys that are relatively comparable in age and share somewhat similar history, geologic composition, and structure. The Santa Cruz Mountains, in which the Project area exists, represents one of these ranges. This mountain range forms the mountainous spine of the San Francisco Peninsula and extends about 80 miles, from the vicinities of Daly City to Watsonville. The average summit height reaches 2,500 feet above sea level.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-1 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

The Coast Ranges generally exhibit strong northwest-southeast trends, induced by folds and faults of the same trend. The Coast Ranges generally consist of sedimentary rocks underlain by two unlike kinds of basement rocks, the Franciscan and Salinian complexes, mostly of middle Mesozoic age. The Franciscan complex, which is present east of the San Andreas Fault Zone and west of the Nacimiento Fault Zones, generally consists of an assemblage of oceanic crustal rocks (predominantly sandstone and shale) which have been intruded by ultramafic igneous rocks; this complex presumably formed as a result of the subduction of the western oceanic plate beneath the continental plate beginning in the Mesozoic Period. The Salinian complex (block), which is present between the San Andreas and Nacimiento fault zones, consists of metamorphic and igneous rocks; because of the similarities between the Salinian igneous rocks and those found in Sierra Nevada, it is believed that the Salinian block has moved hundreds of miles northward along the west side of the San Andreas Fault Zone. Besides the Franciscan and Salinian complexes, the only major pre-Cenezoic sedimentary rocks in the Coast Range belong to the Great Valley sequence. Sedimentary rocks that overlay the Franciscan and Salinian complexes are Cenezoic in age and predominantly represent sediments deposited along the continental shelf.

The Project area is located between the San Andreas and Nacimiento fault zones, and is underlain by unconsolidated and semiconsolidated deposits, sedimentary rocks, and the Salinian block (Brabb 1997). Mapped Salinian rocks that are crossed by the project include Cretaceous quartz diorite, Mesozoic or Paleozoic marble, and other Mesozoic or Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks. Sedimentary rocks include sandstone, siltstone, and mudstone of Pliocene, Miocene, and Paleocene age. Pleistocene semiconsolidated coastal terrace deposits and Holocene unconsolidated alluvial deposits are also present in the Project area. The more distinctive geomorphic feature in the Project area includes the marine terraces (and associated deposits), which were formed in the past when the sea level was higher relative to the current sea level (as shown on Figures 7-1 through 7-3, Table 7-1, and described below, from youngest to oldest [modified from Brabb 1997]). These rocks and deposits are typically covered by a soil zone ranging in thickness from a few inches to over 5 feet.

• Alluvial deposits, undifferentiated (Holocene) (Qal) – Unconsolidated, heterogeneous, moderately sorted silt and sand containing discontinuous lenses of clay and silty clay. Locally includes large amounts of gravel. May include deposits equivalent to flood-plain deposits in areas where these were not differentiated.

• Coastal terrace deposits, undifferentiated (Pleistocene) (Qcu) – Semiconsolidated, moderately well-sorted marine sand with thin, discontinuous gravel-rich layers. May be overlain by poorly sorted fluvial and colluvial silt, sand, and gravel.

• Lowest emergent coastal terrace deposits (Pleistocene) (Qcl) – Semiconsolidated, generally well- sorted sand with a few thin, relatively continuous layers of gravel. Deposited in nearshore high- energy marine environment.

• Purisima Formation (Pliocene and upper Miocene) (Tp) – Very thick bedded, yellowish-gray tuffaceous and diatomaceous siltstone containing thick interbeds of bluish-gray, semifriable, fine- grained andesitic sandstone. Includes Santa Cruz Mudstone north of Santa Cruz.

• Santa Cruz Mudstone (upper Miocene) (Tsc) – Medium- to thick-bedded and faintly laminated, blocky-weathering, pale-yellowish-brown siliceous (diatomaceous) organic mudstone. Weak and brittle due to abundant, closely spaced fractures.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-2 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

• Santa Margarita Sandstone (upper Miocene) (Tsm) – Very thick bedded to massive thickly crossbedded, yellowish-gray to white friable granular medium- to fine-grained arkosic sandstone; locally calcareous and locally bituminous.

• Monterey Formation (middle Miocene) (TM) – Medium- to thick-bedded and laminated olive- gray to light-gray semisiliceous (diatomaceous) organic mudstone and sandy siltstone. Includes a few thick dolomite interbeds. Would contain an abundance of fossils.

• Lompico Sandstone (middle Miocene) (Tlo) – Thick-bedded to massive yellowish-gray, medium- to fine-grained calcareous arkosic sandstone; locally friable.

• Locatelli Formation (Paleocene) (Tl) – Nodular, olive-gray to pale yellowish-brown micaceous siltstone.

• Quartz diorite (Cretaceous) (qd) – Generally massive and dense in-place, but deeply weathered and well-fractured at exposed outcrops. Grades to granodiorite south and east of Ben Lomond Mountain.

• Metasedimentary rocks (Mesozoic or Paleozoic) (sch) – Mainly pelitic schist and quartzite.

• Marble (Mesozoic or Paleozoic) (m) – Light grey, hard, massive structure containing fractures. Locally contains interbedded schist and calc-silicate rocks.

The Coast Ranges are considered very seismically active largely due to the abundance of active faults. A fault segment is considered active if it has experienced a displacement in the historical record (last 200 years) or during the Holocene (last 11,000 years) (Hart and Bryant 1997). The San Andreas and San Gregorio fault zones represent the two principal active faults within the region (Hall et al. 1974; Hart and Bryant 1997). The main trace of the San Andreas Fault Zone, which extends nearly the entire length of California and cuts through the Santa Cruz Mountains, is approximately 10 miles to the northeast of the Project area. The San Andreas Fault was responsible for the 1906 San Francisco earthquake (magnitude 7.8) and the recent 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (magnitude 6.9). The San Gregorio Fault Zone runs generally offshore (except for two land segments) and parallel to the California shoreline from Bolinas Bay to Monterey Bay, and is approximately 2- to 3-miles west of the Project area.

The epicenters of three small earthquakes (magnitude 5.5 to 5.9) associated with this fault zone were recorded in historic times (between 1869 and 1931) occurring off the coast of the Project area (Toppozada et al. 2000). The Monterey Bay Fault Zone, which extends approximately 25 miles beneath Monterey Bay and is approximately 3 miles from the Project area, is another active fault zone for which no associated earthquakes have been recorded since 1800 above a magnitude of 5.0 (Toppozada et al. 2000). In addition, other potentially active faults are present in the vicinity of the Project area; a fault segment is considered potentially active if there is evidence of displacement during the Late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) or the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years) (Jennings 1994; Hart and Bryant 1997). Although these active or potentially active faults do not extend throughout the Project area, groundshaking from earthquakes generated by them would likely affect the Project area in the future.

Mass wasting (or mass movement) is an ongoing process in the Project area. Mass wasting refers to the failure and downslope movement of soil and rock under direct forces of gravity, including slow processes such as soil creep and rapid processes such as landslides and debris flows. The susceptibility of slopes to failure is dependent on a variety of factors, including the slope angle,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-3 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources geology, amount of rainfall, seismic activities, and other unnatural disturbances. Landslides, shallow debris flows, and soil creep are evident to some degree in the portions of the Project area where steep slopes are present with unstable soil and bedrock. During the field reconnaissance, evidence of recent landslides (since the initial construction of the pipeline) adjacent to the existing pipeline route were observed east of Liddell Spring (within Santa Margarita Sandstone) and adjacent to (west of) the Laguna reach (within Lompico Sandstone near Laguna p.d. 5,000 feet). The two recent landslides at this location have removed a portion of the access dirt road beneath which the existing pipeline rests. These slides were by the city in 2003. Along portions of the Majors reach, it appears that soil creep or another mass movement has removed soil from beneath the existing pipeline, leaving portions of the pipeline without apparent support. In addition, older possible landslide deposits have been mapped along the Liddell, Laguna, and Majors pipeline routes, and their alternative routes (Roberts et al. 1998).

7.3.2 Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the mineralized (fossilized) remains of prehistoric plants and animals, as well as the mineralized impressions (trace fossils) left as indirect evidence of the form and activity of such organisms. These resources are considered to be nonrenewable resources significant to our culture under state and federal law. Some of the sedimentary rocks in the vicinity of the project are known to contain paleontological resources (e.g., fossils), most notably the Monterey Formation.

Paleontologic sensitivity is the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils, as determined by rock or unconsolidated material type, past history of the rock or unconsolidated material unit in producing fossil materials, and fossil sites that are recorded in the unit. A paleontologic sensitivity rating is derived from fossil data from the entire geologic unit, not just from a specific survey area. A three-fold classification of sensitivity, labeled as high, low, and indeterminate, is used in California and recommended by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). The classification is defined as follows:

• High Sensitivity – Indicates fossils are currently observed onsite, localities are recorded within the study area, and/or the unit has a history of producing numerous significant fossil remains.

• Low Sensitivity – Indicates significant fossils are not likely to be found because of random fossil distribution pattern, extreme youth of the rock unit and/or the method of rock formation, such as alteration by heat and pressure.

• Indeterminate Sensitivity – Unknown or undetermined status indicates that the rock unit either has not been sufficiently studied or lacks good exposures to warrant a definitive rating. This rating is treated initially as having a high sensitivity or potential. After study or monitoring, the unit may fall into one of the other categories.

The Museum of Paleontology at the University of California at Berkeley (UC Berkeley), which maintains one of the largest fossil collections for the San Francisco Bay Area, conducted a records search to identify known significant paleontological resources in the vicinity of the Project area. Dr. Patricia Holroyd, a paleontologist representing the museum, reviewed their records and found that no known fossil localities were present in the vicinity of the existing pipeline or proposed alternative routes (Holroyd pers. com. 2002). Although sedimentary rocks in the Project area do contain fossils, no scientifically significant fossils have been found in the area.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-4 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.3.3 Soils The soils information presented in this section is based on the soil survey of Santa Cruz County, California, conducted by the SCS (USDA 1980).

The types of soil along the existing and alternative pipeline routes vary widely based primarily on slope and underlying parent material. Along the existing pipeline and alternative routes, soil characteristics have been generally grouped depending on whether they occur on 1) marine terraces and adjacent hills, 2) mountains and hills predominantly under forest vegetation, and 3) mountains and hills predominantly under brush vegetation. The SCS mapped approximately 42 different specific soil types along the existing and alternative pipeline routes. These soil types and associated characteristics including slopes, drainage, erosion factor, and depth to bedrock are summarized in Appendix D. Soil characteristics associated with agricultural use are discussed in Section 4.3.

Soils that form on mountains and hills predominantly under forest vegetation are deep to moderately deep and well drained or somewhat excessively drained. They have a surface layer of loam, sandy loam, or stony sandy loam. They formed in deposits derived from sandstone, mudstone, siltstone, or granitic rock. The soils are moderately sloping to extremely steep. These soils are generally found along the Liddell and Laguna reaches (including Alternate Alignments), and along the upper portion of the Majors Reach and the Majors Alternatives.

Soils that form on mountains and hills predominantly under brush vegetation are deep to shallow and well-drained or somewhat excessively drained. They have a surface layer of loam, stony loam, gravelly sandy loam, or shaly clay loam. They formed in deposits derived from sandstone, siltstone, shale, or granitic rock. The soils are moderately sloping to extremely steep. These soils are generally found along the Majors Existing Alignment and Alternative 2 (central portion), Majors Alternative 1 (central portion), Laguna/Liddell (upper portion), and Laguna/Liddell Alternative (upper portion) reaches.

Soils that form on marine terraces and adjacent hills (consisting of marine deposits, old alluvium, and weathered mudstone) are shallow to deep or very deep and well-drained to somewhat poorly drained. They have a surface layer of sandy loam, loam, or clay. The soils are nearly level to moderately steep. These soils are generally found along the NCP and NCP Alternative reaches, and along the lowermost portions of the Majors Existing Alignment, Majors Alternatives 1 and 2, Laguna/Liddell, and Laguna/Liddell Alternative reaches.

7.3.4 Mineral Resources Mineral resources are identified in California by classification of areas into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) that are based on guidelines adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board. MRZs within the Monterey Bay Region were established on the basis of a sand, gravel, and stone resource appraisal which included the following actions: a study of pertinent geologic reports and maps; field investigations and sampling at outcrops, and active and inactive pits and quarries; and analysis of water-well logs and drill records.

The areas of concern for protection of mineral resources are designated as significant Mineral Resource Zones-2 (MRZ-2) and Scientific Resource Zones (SZ) areas. MRZ-2 areas are where adequate information indicates that significant deposits are present, or where a high likelihood for their presence exists. SZ areas contain unique or rare occurrences of rocks, minerals, or fossils of outstanding significance. MRZ-2 and SZ areas in the vicinity of the project are shown on Figures 7-1

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-5 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources through 7-3. Other classifications of MRZs include areas with no significant deposits and areas where there is not enough information to determine whether deposits are present.

The Santa Margarita Formation at the Wilder Ranch Sand Quarry is classified as MRZ-2. The Wilder Ranch Sand Quarry contains the active Granite Rock Company Plant. The Santa Margarita Formation is a friable, yellowish-gray marine sand, which has been mined at this site for more than 60 years. The NCP Reach alignment route between p.d. 21,000 and 23,000 feet passes through this MRZ-2 area in front of the entrance to the quarry.

A limestone formation (mapped as a marble unit) classified as MRZ-2, lies just north of the Liddell Spring and Liddell reaches (Figure 7-1). RMC Pacific Materials operates a 300-acre limestone quarry at the site, which supplies aggregate limestone to a Portland cement manufacturing facility in nearby Davenport. This facility has been in operation since 1906. The first approximately 100 feet of the Liddell Reach and Liddell Alternative Reach overlay the same geologic formation; however, they are outside of the identified MRZ-2 area.

The Kalkar Quarry is classified an SZ and lies to the south of the UC Santa Cruz campus, and adjacent to and north of the NCP alignment between p.d. 34,000 and 38,000 feet (Figure 7-3). The area contains a wide variety of silicates, sulfides, and arsenides, including some rare minerals. Crushed limestone suitable for construction material, agricultural limestone, and poultry feed has been quarried form the site. The quarry has been inactive for a number of years and the site is currently used as a park.

A quartz diorite deposit, classified as MRZ-2, lies approximately 1-mile northeast of the diversion on Laguna Creek. The quartz diorite deposit has been used for Portland Cement Concrete aggregate for years.

7.4 Potential Environmental Impacts

This section summarizes the significance criteria, the methods used to identify significant impacts, and potential impacts that may affect the proposed Project.

7.4.1 Thresholds of Significance Significance criteria were determined based on CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form), and on performance standards or thresholds adopted by responsible agencies. During the evaluation of potential environmental impacts related to geology or geologic hazards, paleontologic resources, soils, and mineral resources from the construction or O&M of the proposed Project, an impact would be considered significant if the proposed Project would result in any of the following:

7.4.1.1 Geology and Geologic Hazards

• Severe damage or destruction to one or more project components as a direct consequence of a geologic event, such as a landslide, subsidence, or liquefaction;

• Release of toxic or other damaging material into the environment as a result of a geologic event;

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-6 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

• Exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: seismic ground shaking; rupture of a known earthquake fault; seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction; inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; landslides; flooding; or loss of a unique geologic feature; or

• Permanent damage or alteration to a unique or recognized geologic feature or landmark.

7.4.1.2 Paleontological Resources

• Disturbance or destruction of an intact fossil bed or removal of portions of it in a manner inconsistent with the standards of the SVP;

• Disturbance or destruction of significant vertebrate fossils; or

• Disturbance or destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site.

7.4.1.3 Soil Resources

• Substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil; or

• Location on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (Santa Cruz County 1997), creating substantial risks to life or property.

7.4.1.4 Mineral Resources

• Loss of availability of a known mineral resource and of value to the region and residents of the state; or

• Loss of availability of a locally important-mineral resource recovery site.

7.4.2 Impact Methodology The methods for conducting the impact analysis for impacts related to geology or geologic hazards, paleontologic resources, soils, and mineral resources from the construction or O&M of the proposed Project are described as follows:

7.4.2.1 Geology and Geologic Hazards

This impact analysis was conducted by reviewing available information regarding (1) the local geologic and topographic conditions (e.g., bedrock type, slope) and applicable geologic hazards (e.g., ground failure and other seismically induced hazards), and (2) soil types adjacent to or crossed by the proposed and alternative pipeline routes. Site conditions and associated impacts that could occur during the construction or O&M of the pipelines were then compared to established significance criteria to assess whether those impacts were considered significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-7 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.4.2.2 Paleontological Resources

This impact analysis was conducted by reviewing available geologic information (e.g., characteristics of bedrock) of units adjacent to or crossed by the proposed and alternative pipeline routes. In addition, the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley was contacted to conduct a records search to identify known significant paleontological resources in the vicinity of the Project area. The paleontological sensitivity of the Project area would be reasonably assessed by identifying the presence or lack of presence of significant fossil localities documented in the Project area. The paleontological sensitivity of geologic units crossed by the proposed or alternative pipeline routes (established primarily based on the results of the museum records search) were then compared to established significance criteria to assess whether potential impacts to paleontological resources were considered significant.

7.4.2.3 Soil Resources

This impact analysis was conducted by reviewing soil types and topography crossed by the proposed and alternative pipeline routes. Soil conditions, site topography, and associated impacts that could result during the construction or O&M of the pipelines were then compared to established significance criteria to assess whether those impacts were considered significant.

7.4.2.4 Mineral Resources

This impact analysis was conducted by reviewing geologic conditions and information pertaining to known mineral resources (i.e., existing or former mining sites, identified mineral deposits of economic value) crossed by the proposed and alternative pipeline routes. Locations of potential or identified mineral resources that are crossed or are near the proposed and alternative pipeline routes were then compared to established significance criteria to assess whether impact posed by the construction of the project were considered significant.

7.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The Project area traverses diverse geologic resources described in Section 7.3. This section summarizes the potential impacts associated with the project geology, geologic hazards, paleontological resources, soil conditions, and mineral resources. Much of the discussion that follows, especially for seismic hazards, paleontological resources, and landslides, is common to all reaches considered for the proposed Project. The minimization and mitigation measures, discussed in general below, including design standards for the pipeline, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The reach-specific impact section addresses site-specific information that would affect the potential for particular impacts to occur.

7.4.3.1 Geology and Geologic Hazards

Geologic Formations

Construction and O&M activities of the proposed Project should not materially alter the geological conditions of the Project area. The primary effects from construction would include disturbances to the existing topography along the pipeline ROW from trenching during construction, and disturbances to the surrounding environment from any rock excavation conducted during construction. Based on the weathered nature of the shallow bedrock, it is not anticipated that blasting would be required

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-8 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources during construction. Once construction activities have been completed, the topography would not be significantly different from its current condition.

Rock excavation may be required to excavate bedrock at locations throughout the project reaches during construction of underground portions of the pipeline. Locations having shallow depths to the bedrock or rock outcrops that interfere with the movement of machinery along the ROW may require rock excavation. Appendix D indicates where the bedrock is near the surface (less than 5 feet).

Horizontal directional drilling could be conducted to place the pipeline beneath streams, roadways, and ridges. During drilling, frac-outs may occur, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location. Frac-outs occur when drilling equipment encounter subsurface voids (such as at fracture zones or caverns) during drilling and pressurized drilling fluids leave the borehole. Although no fault zones have been mapped along the project reaches and it is unlikely that subsurface caverns are present along the project reaches, frac-outs may occur. The probability of a frac-out occurring would be reduced by drilling at a sufficient depth below ground surface (e.g., greater than a depth of 10 feet below the bottom of stream channels).

Geologic Hazards Related to Seismicity

Seismicity, the phenomenon of earth movements, is a relatively widespread geologic hazard to the proposed Project. The potential for future earthquakes in the Project area within the lifetime of the pipeline is high. Ground shaking is the earthquake effect that results in the vast majority of damage. Strong shaking from an earthquake could result in landslides, ground lurching, liquefaction, and direct structural damage of the pipeline and associated facilities. Portions of the project in the Liddell, Laguna, and Majors Creek watersheds are on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be more susceptible to seismically initiated landslides. The placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist (e.g., excavation of hillside notches to place pipe), which could facilitate a seismically initiated landslide. Alternatively, the replacement of existing pipe provides an opportunity to replace deteriorating pipe more prone to failure than with new pipe. Additionally, new pipe can also help to stabilize existing slope cuts.

Liquefaction typically occurs in loose, saturated soils or sediments of primarily sandy composition, in the presence of ground accelerations generally greater than 0.2 grams. When liquefaction occurs, the material involved has a total or substantial loss of shear strength and behaves like a liquid or semi- viscous substance. Liquefaction would cause structural distress or failure due to settlement, a loss of bearing capacity in the foundation soils, and the buoyant rise of buried structures. The excess hydrostatic pressure generated by ground shaking would result in the formation of sand boils, mud spouts, and/or seepage of water through ground cracks. Because the depth to groundwater is generally deep and does not occur within loose sandy soil or sediment (except adjacent to stream crossings), the potential for the sandy material along most of the project route to liquefy is low. However, based on a liquefaction potential map presented in the Santa Cruz City General Plan (1994) (Map from Dupre 1975) portions of the NCP Reach (p.d. 41,000 to 44,200) and NCP Reach Alternative (p.d. 5,000 to 9,600) near the San Lorenzo River are within zones considered to have moderately high potential for liquefaction during a seismic event, based on the presence of underlying saturated sandy material. Because the pipeline at most stream crossings would be placed at depths below the stream channels (via directional drilling) or above them (via bridge suspension), the potential for impacts to the project due to liquefaction in these areas is low.

Compared to ground shaking and associated hazards, primary ground rupture along the causative fault typically would result in a relatively small percentage of the total damage in an earthquake. However,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-9 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources the Project area is not located within or adjacent to any known fault zones. The San Andreas and San Gregorio fault zones represent the two principal active faults within the region; these fault zones are 10 miles and 2 to 3 miles from the Project area, respectively. The hazard from ground rupture is negligible on the basis of this information.

The Project area is located within Seismic Zone 4 as designated in the UBC and the California Building Code (CBC). Design measures would mitigate or minimize the effects of ground shaking by earthquakes. Design for consideration of the UBC and CBC seismic criteria as well as BMPs would provide an appropriate level of conservation for design against the effects of earthquake shaking.

Although construction activities have the potential to create less stable conditions that can lead to seismically initiated landslides if construction occurs on or adjacent to steep slopes of erosive soil and bedrock, design measures and BMPs would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. Furthermore, the replacement of pipeline may potentially have a beneficial impact by reducing the likelihood of pipeline rupture or failure due to a seismic event. Potential impacts from O&M activities would be reduced to less than significant levels through use of design measures and BMPs.

Geologic Hazards Related to Ground Failure

A pipeline potentially could also be damaged by ground failure (not initiated by seismicity) in the areas of the project that are susceptible to landsliding and slumping. Deep-seated landslides or rock avalanches could occur along the proposed Project reaches. Landslide potential is highest in mountainous and hilly areas where relief is greatest, such as the Liddell, Laguna, and Majors reaches and alternatives. Susceptible areas would also include some stream channels where channel walls contain unconsolidated deposits and erodible rock formations susceptible to earth flows and slumps. Potential damage to an aboveground pipeline could result from ground failure beneath the pipeline as well as ground failure up-slope of the pipeline. On the other hand, belowground pipeline tends to be protected from ground failure up-slope of the pipeline. In addition, the placement of the new pipeline could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist (e.g., excavation of hillside notches to place pipeline), which could facilitate ground failure processes. Some of the proposed alternatives would move the pipeline away from steep slopes in the Laguna Creek Canyon and Majors Creek Canyon potentially reducing the susceptibility of the pipeline to slope failure.

Earth flow and soil creep hazards could occur in the proposed Project area, such as in portions of the Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and NCP reaches (including Alternatives). Earth flow hazards exist along stream banks where alluvial deposits are easily eroded by river scour (during high flow periods). Soil creep is an almost undetectable slow downslope mass movement that would potentially accelerate to slope slumps or slides.

Implementation of minimization measures for geologic hazards would help reduce the above impacts that may potentially be caused by O&M activities. No significant impacts from construction activities are expected for all reaches and alternatives. Avoidance and design accommodations are the best methods of minimizing impacts to geologic resources in the Project area.

7.4.3.2 Paleontologic Resources

A records search was conducted by a paleontologist representing the Museum of Paleontology at UC Berkeley. This search found that no known fossil localities were present in the vicinity of the existing pipeline or proposed alternative routes. Therefore, the potential impact to significant paleontological resources is low for all project alternatives for both the construction and O&M activities.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-10 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.4.3.3 Soils

Project construction and O&M could adversely affect soils in several ways. In addition to loss of soil productivity through soil compaction, damage to soil structure, and loss of soil fertility by mixing of topsoil and subsoil horizons, the most significant effects are potential increases in soil erosion (from water or wind). Potential changes to drainage also could occur. Any of these effects could impair revegetation, which is necessary for stabilization and restoration of the construction ROW. In addition, it is possible that oils, toxins, and hazardous or other polluting materials could be inadvertently released to the soil during construction activities, or that unknown contaminated soils could be encountered during trenching.

Several phases of pipeline construction, including vegetation clearing, grading, topsoil segregation, trenching, and backfilling, destabilize the soil surface and increase erosion potential from water and wind. Soil erosion could also result from off-road vehicle traffic on the ROW following construction. A soil’s susceptibility to erosion varies and is a function of its characteristics such as soil texture, soil structure, topography (steepness of slope), surface roughness, amount of surface cover (vegetative or other), and climate. Erosion potential increases the longer soils are left bare. Erosion from water primarily occurs in loose soils on moderate to steep slopes, particularly during high-intensity storm events. Wind erosion would occur in dry, sandy soils where vegetative cover is difficult to establish and maintain.

Although the types of soil along the project alignments vary widely based primarily on slope and underlying parent material, soil erosion impacts could occur along all portions of the project. Sandy soils (e.g., in the Santa Margarita Formation) along the steeper slopes tend to be very erosive and could represent a higher potential for significant erosion impacts either during construction or subsequent to completion.

To mitigate or minimize potential impacts from soil erosion, the city would prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prior to construction to mitigate potential impacts to soil. The city would also prepare a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC Plan is designed to minimize hazards to human health and/or the environment from any unplanned sudden or nonsudden release of contaminants to the air, soil, surface water, or groundwater. The SPCC would also outline the steps to be taken by city personnel, contractors, and inspectors if contaminated soil is encountered during grading or trenching activities.

The discussion below summarizes mitigation measures that would be employed to minimize erosion impacts. Because it is unlikely that either contaminants (i.e., oils, toxins, and hazardous, or other polluting materials) would be inadvertently released to the soil during construction activities for this project, or that unknown contaminated soils would be encountered during construction activities, measures contained in the SPCC Plan are not further described in this section.

Soil erosion for all affected soils would be reduced with both temporary and permanent erosion control practices. These practices include the use of temporary and permanent structures such as interception dikes (i.e., soil berms and sand bags), sediment barriers (e.g., soil berms, silt fences, staked hay or straw bales, or sand bags), and trench barriers and breakers (constructed of materials such as sandbags or polyurethane foam). Soil erosion would also be reduced by minimizing the time of soil disturbance, avoiding construction during periods of maximum runoff, reestablishing contours and vegetative cover as soon as possible, and stabilizing the soil surface with temporary and permanent planting and mulching (consisting of straw, erosion control fabric, or some functional equivalent). Rice straw should not be used, particularly in the grasslands on the marine terraces and coastal plain.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-11 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Soil expansion is a phenomenon by which clayey soils expand in volume as a result of an increase in moisture content, and shrink in volume upon drying. Along the project alignments, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified in some areas. The shrink-swell potential for soils along the remaining portions of the reaches is low. Design measures would mitigate the effects of expansive soils to a less than significant level.

Design of construction BMPs will reduce the potential risk to less than significant levels. Where possible, pipeline routes that avoid steep slopes and the creation of new and more extensive slope cuts would be selected. Mitigation measures would also be employed for O&M activities, which would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

7.4.3.4 Mineral Resources

The proposed Project could impact mineral resources by installing the pipeline over existing mineral resources. This could reduce or prevent the ability to mine these resources in the future. Replacing the pipeline in the existing alignment would not impact any mineral resources because the pipeline already exists within an established ROW in such locations, and therefore, no loss of availability or access to mineral resources would occur. For example, a portion of the existing NCP Reach alignment intersects the southeast corner of the Santa Margarita Formation in which the Wilder Ranch Quarry lies. Less than 1,500 feet of pipeline is in this area, and the pipeline does not directly intersect existing quarry operations. Refurbishment of this stretch of pipeline is not expected to disrupt quarry operations or affect the mineral resources of the area since a ROW is already established resulting in no impact. In addition, the stretch of the NCP Reach along High Street runs adjacent to the UC Santa Cruz Kalkar Quarry Scientific Zone, but does not intersect it. Project activities are not expected to have any impact because the project lies outside the zone and a ROW has already been established resulting in no impact.

Should an alternative alignment be selected that limits access to a mineral resource, an impact would be possible. Reach-specific information about existing mineral resources is presented in the sections below. However, the one area potentially affected (Liddell Reach Alternative) results in a less than significant impact because of the small scale of reduced access. No impacts from construction or O&M activities are anticipated for all other reaches and alternatives.

Tables 7-2 and 7-3 summarize the potential impacts related to these resources.

7.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the various specific sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. There are no construction-related impacts expected for Alternative 1 (No Project) of all diversion structures and pipeline reaches, as no construction activities are planned. For this reason, this alternative is generally not discussed at each site.

Under all diversion structures/pipeline reaches for all alternatives, potential breakage/failure of the structure/piping could occur as a result of ground shaking from a seismic event, resulting from O&M activities. The Project area is within a seismically active area, which is prone to ground shaking during an earthquake. Considering the current age and design of the structure and piping, such shaking could result in the increased likelihood of the structure or pipeline breaking/failing. Under Alternative 1 (No Project) for all diversions/reaches, no mitigation measures exist other than replacing or updating the structure/piping. For all other alternatives, implementation of Mitigation 7-5

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-12 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

(below) would reduce this potential impact from O&M activities to a level that is less than significant. Because this potential impact is the same for each alternative in all reaches and at all diversion structures, this impact is not further discussed for each specific site below.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific reach or diversion structure being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Geology and Soils Impact R-1, Geology and Soils Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Geology and Soils Impact 1-1, Geology and Soils Impact 1-2, etc.

7.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion

7.5.1.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact R-1 Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of O&M activities.

No physical modification to the diversion would be conducted. Evidence of past bank erosion is present along Reggiardo Creek immediately downstream of the diversion. The long-term erosion potential along existing access roads should not significantly increase, relative to current conditions, as a result of O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.2 Laguna Diversion

7.5.2.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact L-1: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the repair of the structure.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the modification of the Laguna Diversion is moderate. The existing erosion potential at the diversion should not be increased as a result of the diversion reconstruction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-13 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact L-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the modification of the structure/piping and O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.3 Majors Diversion

7.5.3.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact M-1: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the repair of the structure.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the modification of the Majors Diversion is moderate. The existing erosion potential at this diversion should not be increased as a result of the diversion reconstruction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact M-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the modification of the structure/piping and O&M activities.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the modification of the Majors Diversion is moderate. The existing erosion potential at the diversion should not be increased as a result of the diversion reconstruction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

7.5.4.1 LID Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 1-1: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-14 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Most of the Liddell Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides are present along much of the Liddell Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative. Based on the age of the pipeline, the pipeline may be more susceptible to failure resulting from a slope failure event when compared to the construction of a new pipeline.

7.5.4.2 LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 1-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the Liddell pipeline is high in steep areas underlain by the Santa Margarita Formation (p.d. 0 to 3,000 feet). The existing erosion potential along existing access roads should not be significantly increased as a result of the pipeline construction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 1-3: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath creek crossings and through ridges.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location. Frac-outs may potentially occur at crossings LID-01 and LID-02 and possibly at the ridge near Rattlesnake Canyon.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 1-4: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Most of the Liddell Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides are present along much of the Liddell Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations. In addition, the placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, where new bench cuts or trenches are needed (i.e., along the steep side slope between 0 and 1,500 feet). Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 1-5: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur over the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-15 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 1-6: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Liddell Reach, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified in a few localized areas (p.d. 7,700 and 8,500, and 8,800 and 9,600 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.4.3 LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 1-7: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the Liddell alternative alignment pipeline is high in steep areas underlain by the Santa Margarita Formation (entire route of this alternative). However, this alternative would eliminate the placement of the pipeline in the riparian corridor immediately down gradient of Liddell Spring. The existing erosion potential along existing access roads should not be significantly increased as a result of the pipeline construction. Erosion is a potentially significant problem on the steep slopes between the access road and the sedimentation basin area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. It would help reduce the level of this potential impact on steep slopes, but it is unlikely that complete control could be achieved. This could contribute to a potentially significant and unmitigatable impact.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 1-8: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

This portion of the Liddell Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. However, the pipeline would be placed below ground or adjacent to the existing road, which would reduce steep slope construction to approximately 200 feet. Evidence of past landslides is present along this portion of the Liddell Reach. In addition, the placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, where new bench cuts or trenches are needed. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-16 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant on existing roads. It would help reduce the level of this potential impact on steep slopes, but it is unlikely that complete control could be achieved. This could contribute to a potentially significant and unmitigatable impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 1-9: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the Liddell pipeline is high in steep areas underlain by the Santa Margarita Formation (entire length of this alternative). The existing erosion potential along existing access roads should not be significantly increased. Erosion is a potentially significant problem on the steep slopes between the access road and the sedimentation basin area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant on existing roads. It would help reduce the level of this potential impact on steep slopes, but it is unlikely that complete control can be achieved. This could contribute to a potentially significant and unmitigatable impact.

7.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

7.5.5.1 LAG/LID Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 2-1: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Laguna/Liddell Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides is present along portions of the Laguna/Liddell Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations (e.g., p.d. 4,000 to 5,000 feet). Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline. There are no mitigation measures under this alternative. Based on the age of the pipeline, the pipeline may be more susceptible to failure resulting from a slope failure event when compared to the construction of a new pipeline.

7.5.5.2 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 2-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the Laguna/Liddell pipeline is high in areas where the pipeline would be placed outside of road footprints (the majority of the length). Particularly, erosion is a potentially significant problem at the Laguna Creek crossing (LAG/LID-02) where the bank is fairly steep.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-17 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would help reduce the level of this potential impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control would be achieved on the steep slopes at LAG/LID-02. This could contribute to a potentially significant and unmitigable impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 2-3: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath a creek crossing.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location. Specifically, frac-outs may occur at the LAG/LID-01 and LAG/LID-03 crossings.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 2-4: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Laguna/Liddell Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides is present along portions of the Laguna/Liddell Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations (e.g., p.d. 4,000 to 5,000 feet). In addition, the placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, where new bench cuts or trenches are needed. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 2-5: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 2-6: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Laguna/Liddell Reach, expansive soils have been identified in a few localized areas (p.d. 300 to 800, 2,600 to 3,500, and 4,400 and 5,400 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-18 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.5.5.3 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 2-7: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

This alternative alignment would require more construction in the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation (p.d. 500 to 4,500 feet) than the existing Laguna/Liddell alignment (p.d. 500 to 1,000 feet). Evidence of soil erosion was observed along the existing road and the adjacent gulch. Installing the pipeline in an existing, disturbed roadbed would limit long-term erosion to what is already an existing problem rather than create new problems associated with vegetation removal for reconstruction in the existing alignment.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 2-8: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Although much of this alternative alignment is adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep, the alignment itself is primarily at the base of the slopes where the risk of damage to a buried pipeline would be reduced. However, the placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, where new bench cuts or trenches are needed. Slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 2-9: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 2-10: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Laguna/Liddell Reach Alternative, moderately expansive soils occur in one area (p.d. 2,100 to 4,800 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-19 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

7.5.6.1 LAG Alternative 1– No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 3-1: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Laguna Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of recent landslides is present along portions of the Laguna Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations (i.e., between LAG-02 and LAG-03). Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline. There are no mitigation measures under this alternative. Based on the age of the pipeline, the pipeline may be more susceptible to failure resulting from a slope failure event when compared to the construction of a new pipeline.

7.5.6.2 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 3-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would help reduce the level of this potential impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control would be achieved on the steep slopes between LAG-02 and LAG-03, resulting in a potentially significant and unmitigable impact.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 3-3: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Laguna Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of recent landslides is present along portions of the Laguna Reach, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive formations (i.e., between LAG-02 and LAG-03). In addition, the placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, where new bench cuts or trenches are needed. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-20 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Geology and Soils Impact 3-4: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the Laguna pipeline is high in the steep areas of the canyon, especially where the pipeline would require vegetation removal or new bench cuts (i.e., near LAG-03). The long-term erosion potential along existing access roads should not significantly increase, relative to current conditions, as a result of the pipeline construction. However, these areas have recently suffered from landslides.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control would be achieved on the steep slopes between LAG-02 and LAG-03.

Geology and Soils Impact 3-5: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Laguna Reach, moderately to highly expansive soils are found in a few localized areas (p.d. 0 to 400, 1,300 to 1,700, 8,200 to 9,100, and 10,670 to 12,500 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.6.3 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 3-6: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the Laguna Alternative alignment pipeline is greatly reduced compared to the existing alignment due to the reduction in construction in steep areas. Because this portion of the pipeline would be buried under an existing paved roadway, the project is unlikely to increase the risk of erosion. Sediment runoff generated during the project would also be limited to this steeper reach and at the two creek crossings. Sediment runoff is not anticipated to be a problem during construction across the open grasslands from approximately p.d. 3,000 feet along the alternative alignment to creek crossing LAG-04.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 3-7: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

The potential for future landslides and other ground failure events exists for this alternative alignment compared to the existing alignment due to the reduction in construction in steep areas. The alignment includes to steep portions of the pipeline. The first is located on the existing private access road from

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-21 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources approximately p.d. 0 to 2,000 feet along the alternative alignment. Because this portion of the pipeline would be buried under an existing paved roadway, the project is unlikely to increase the risk of landslides. Construction of the pipeline at this location has the potential to exacerbate the existing slope failure and soil creep problem Slope failure could result in the failure of the pipeline. The second steep portion is located on the southern end of the ridgeline from approximately p.d. 7,000 to 9,000 feet. This slope adjacent to and downgradient of the Bierman residence has been subject to well documented slope failure and soil creep problems.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would help reduce the level of this potentially significant impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control could be achieved. A pipeline leak or failure could lead to potentially significant and unmitigated impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3-8: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

Long-term potential for soil erosion would also be reduced by this alternative alignment over the existing alignment. Ongoing erosion problems within Laguna Creek Canyon would be avoided by this alternative. Some potential for long-term soil erosion exists along the alternative on the downward slope from approximately p.d. 7,500 to 8,900 feet. This portion of the alignment would likely require monitoring by foot during the rainy season. With applicable erosion control measures in place, long-term erosion problems would not increase by installing the pipeline in the private road.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that represents no significant impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 3-9: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Laguna Reach Alternative, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified in the lower portions of the reach (p.d. 2,700 to 9,000 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

7.5.7.1 MAJ Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-1: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Majors Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock (excluding the more competent quartz diorite), which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides and soil creep is present along much of the existing alignment, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive soils. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline. There are no mitigation measures proposed for this alternative. Based on the age of the pipeline, the pipeline may be more susceptible to failure resulting from a slope failure event when compared to the construction of a new pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-22 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

7.5.7.2 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-2: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the existing alignment is high where vegetation must be removed, access pathways and bench cuts created. Steep areas are especially susceptible to soil erosion (p.d. 0 to 8,000 feet).

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would help reduce the level of this potential impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control could be achieved on the steep slopes, resulting in a potentially significant and unmitigable impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-3: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath creek crossings and through ridges.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur at crossing MAJ-01, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-4: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Much of the Majors Reach is on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock (excluding the more competent quartz diorite), which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. Evidence of past landslides and soil creep is present along much of the existing alignment, especially in the steeper terrain with highly erosive soils. The placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist, especially where new bench cuts are required (along approximately 8,000 feet of the alignment). Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would help reduce the level of this potential impact. However, it is unlikely that complete control would be achieved on the steep slopes. This may contribute to a potentially significant and unmitigatable impact.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-5: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant in most areas. Although Mitigation 7-2 would minimize the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-23 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources potential for erosion, it may not be sufficient to eliminate the impacts likely to occur in the steepest areas with erosive soils and limited access.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-6: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Majors Reach, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified in the lower portions of the reach (p.d. 6,500 to 11,300 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.7.3 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-7: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the Majors Alternative 1 alignment pipeline is high in steep areas of relatively erosive soil and bedrock. A substantially smaller portion of the alternative alignment is on steep slopes, compared to the existing alignment (approximately 800 feet versus 8,000 feet.). Installation of the pipeline along the first 800 feet of the alternative would occur directly up the eastern canyon slope to the ridgeline. This pipeline would be placed above ground with minimal vegetation removal, and no new bench cuts are anticipated.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-8: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath creek crossings.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur at crossing MAJ-01, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-9: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Portions of the Majors Reach Alternative 1 are on steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, although a substantially smaller portion of the alternative alignment is on steep slopes compared to the existing alignment (approximately 800 feet versus 8,000 feet.). The placement of the new pipe could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist on steep slopes. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-24 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-10: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the Majors Alternative 1 alignment is high where vegetation must be removed. Steep areas are especially susceptible to soil erosion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Special erosion control measures would be necessary to prevent high-velocity transport of runoff straight down the pipeline alignment from p.d. 0 to 800 feet.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-11: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along most of the Majors Reach Alternative 1, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified (p.d. 800 to 9,100 feet). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.7.4 MAJ Alternative 4 –Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-12: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the Majors Alternative 2 alignment pipeline is high in areas where the pipeline would be placed outside of road footprints (small portion of the length). Installing the pipeline in an existing, disturbed roadbed would limit long-term erosion to what is already an existing problem rather than create new problems associated with vegetation removal for reconstruction in the existing alignment or construction in the Alternative 1 alignment.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-13: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath creek crossings.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur at crossing MAJ-01, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-25 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 4-14: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

Portions of the Majors Reach Alternative 2 are on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. The placement of the new pipe in or on existing road bench road cuts could create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist. The pipeline would exist at the based of those steep slopes where risk of change to a buried pipeline would be reduced. Such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-15: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 4-16: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Along the Majors Reach, moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified in the lower portions of the reach (p.d. 6,500 to 11,300 feet) (Figures 7-1 and 7-2). Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

7.5.8.1 NCP Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 5-1: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

A few areas of the NCP Reach (primarily at stream crossings) are on or adjacent to steep slopes of relatively erosive soil and bedrock, which would be more susceptible to slope failure, including landslides, debris flows, and soil creep. The potential for such slope failure events within the lifetime of the pipeline is low. There is little evidence of past landslides and soil creep along the NCP Reach,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-26 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources except adjacent to stream crossings. The placement of the new pipe as planned should not create less stable conditions than otherwise would exist. However, such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline. There are no mitigation measures prepared for this alternative. Based on the age of the pipeline, the pipeline may be more susceptible to failure resulting from a slope failure event when compared to the construction of a new pipeline.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-2: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of liquefaction of the shallow soil from a seismic event.

A portion of the NCP Reach (p.d. 41,000 to 44,200 feet) near the San Lorenzo River is within a zone considered to have moderately high potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The liquefaction of soils adjacent to the pipeline could result in the failure of the pipeline. Other than updating or replacing the pipeline, there are no other known mitigation measures for this potential impact.

7.5.8.2 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 5-3: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the NCP pipeline is moderate. There are small areas with steep slopes and erosive Santa Margarita formation soils in Wilder Creek (p.d. 26,000 feet), Moore Creek (p.d. 30,000 to 31,000 feet), and above Harvey West Park (p.d. 40,200 to 40,600 feet). The existing erosion potential along existing roads should not be significantly increased as a result of the pipeline construction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-4: Frac-outs could occur while horizontal directional drilling beneath creek crossings.

During drilling, frac-outs may occur at crossings NCP-03 through NCP-10 and NCP-13, which could result in the release of drilling fluids (i.e., bentonite slurry) on the ground surface and redrilling in another location.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 5-5: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of slope failure along the pipeline route.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-27 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources stable conditions than otherwise would exist. However, such slope failures could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigations 7-1 and 7-4 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-6: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of liquefaction of the shallow soil from a seismic event.

A portion of the NCP Reach Alternative (p.d. 41,000 to 44,200 feet) near the San Lorenzo River is within a zone considered to have moderately high potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. Because the pipeline at most stream crossings would be placed at depths below the stream channels (via directional drilling) or above them (via suspension), the potential for impacts due to liquefaction at stream crossings is low. The liquefaction of soils adjacent to the pipeline could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-7 (below) would reduce this potential to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-7: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur in the long-term as a result of the construction of the pipeline and O&M activities.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the replacement of the NCP pipeline is moderate. The existing erosion potential along existing roads should not be significantly increased as a result of the pipeline construction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-8: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified along much of the NCP Reach. Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.8.3 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 5-9: Potentially significant soil erosion could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

The potential for substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil that could occur as a result of the placement of the NCP Reach alternate pipeline is low because of the relatively low relief. However, erosion of soil during construction could occur. This alternative would avoid the steep slope above Harvey West Park.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-28 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Geology and Soils Impact 5-10: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of liquefaction of the shallow soil from a seismic event.

A portion of the NCP Reach alternate alignment (p.d. 5,000 to 9,600) near the San Lorenzo River is within a zone considered to have moderately high potential for liquefaction during a seismic event. The liquefaction of soils adjacent to the pipeline could result in the failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-7 (below) would reduce this potential to a level that is less than significant.

Geology and Soils Impact 5-11: Potential break/failure of the pipeline could occur as a result of the presence of expansive soils.

Moderately to highly expansive soils have been identified along much of the NCP Reach Alternate Alignment. Movement of these expansive soils could result in the break/failure of the pipeline.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 7-6 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

7.5.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 7-1: The city shall conduct routine O&M inspections of the pipeline route, especially if a significant seismic event has occurred. A slope failure that does not initially cause the pipeline to fail may create unstable ground surface conditions along the pipeline, potentially leading to failure in the pipeline in the future. In such a case, BMPs shall be employed to stabilize the ground in the vicinity of the pipeline.

Mitigation 7-2: The city shall ensure the use of BMPs to reduce soil erosion to less than significant levels, as is described in Section 7.4.1 (above) and would be detailed in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan. Alternative methods of pipeline installation such as directional drilling, could be used across creek crossings or through steep ridges would reduce impacts from erosion in these areas.

Mitigation 7-3: The city shall ensure the use of design measures and BMPs to reduce potential for frac-outs to less than significant levels. The probability of a frac-out occurring would be reduced by drilling at a sufficient depth below ground surface (e.g., greater than a depth of 10 feet below the bottom of stream channels and ground surface).

Mitigation 7-4: The city shall ensure the use of design measures and BMPs during the construction of the pipeline to reduce the likelihood of slope failure. These BMPs may include the construction of a drainage system to divert surface and subsurface water flow and a retaining wall to support over- steepened walls.

Mitigation 7-5: The city shall ensure the use of design measures based on UBC and CBC seismic criteria for Seismic Zone 4 as well as BMPs to reduce potential pipe damage from ground shaking.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-29 7.0 Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources

Mitigation 7-6: The city shall ensure the use of design measures and BMPs to reduce potential pipe damage from expansive soils to less than significant levels.

Mitigation 7-7: The city shall ensure the use of design measures and BMPs to reduce potential pipe damage from the liquefaction of soils to less than significant levels.

7.5.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant During construction and repair of the pipeline, the quarry operations would be disturbed as a result of associated activities. This disturbance would be temporary and short in duration. No mitigation measures would be required because this impact is considered to be less than significant.

During construction and repair of the pipeline, the quarry operations would be disturbed as a result of activities associated with the construction of the pipeline. This disturbance would be temporary and short in duration. Also, the first approximate 100 feet of the alignment is on the formation being mined by the quarry. No mitigation would be required because these impacts are considered to be less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 7-30 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter discusses the information available on surface and groundwater occurrence, quality, supply and demand, regulatory issues, flooding, and historical and forecasted conditions. The discussion provides the basis for the evaluation of potential project effects.

The Santa Cruz Mountains, like most of central California, are marked by winter rains and summer drought. The streams on the west-side of the Santa Cruz Mountains drain relatively small watersheds. The largest of the watersheds within the Project area, Laguna, has an area of approximately 4,986 acres. Most of the streams draining the west-side of the Santa Cruz Mountains flow through steep- walled canyons in the upper watershed characterized by riffle/pool habitat, continuing through run habitat at the lower elevations, then down into a lagoon and out to the Pacific Ocean when the barrier beach is open. These streams tend to exhibit “flashy” (rapidly rising and falling) winter flows in response to storm events, which are intensified by the orographic effect of the mountains. As the dry season progresses and soil dries out, the streams continue to be fed by seeps and springs. Summer “base” flow at any point in a stream is therefore reflective of the cumulative rate of emergence of groundwater into the stream channel (ESA 2001).

8.2 Regulatory Considerations

8.2.1 Federal Regulations Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board—Clean Water Act Section 401 – The CCRWQCB is charged with regulating waste discharge, including sediment, through water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA. Requirements for water quality certification and 401 compliance vary depending on the anticipated discharge activity and measures to avoid, reduce, or minimize water quality degradation.

The City would be required to comply with Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA. Compliance with Section 401 is required for a Section 404 Permit to be valid (Jones & Stokes 2000). To comply with Section 401, the City would apply for a Water Quality Certification or waiver from the CCRWQCB. In addition, Section 404 of the CWA requires a Construction Storm Water Permit for construction activities that disturb 5 or more acres.

8.2.2 State Regulations Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board—Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit – In 1999, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted a Construction Activities Storm Water General Permit under Water Quality Order No. 99-08-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit No. CAS000002 for the regulation of stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. This permit allows for discharges of non-stormwater that does not cause or contribute to a violation of any water quality standard. The CCRWQCB finds that Order No. 99-08-DWQ provides adequate water quality protection and compliance monitoring. Non-stormwater discharges related to construction activities may continue to be regulated under this order while construction activities continue.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-1 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

State General Stormwater Permit – In response to CWA requirements, the state of California has adopted a general stormwater permit covering nonpoint source discharges from certain industrial facilities and from construction sites involving more than 5 acres (the City of Santa Cruz grading ordinance and the stormwater discharge ordinance also require compliance with the state general construction stormwater permit). The General Permit requires preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) and implementation of BMPs to reduce the potential for non-stormwater pollutants (chemicals and sediment) to be discharged from the construction site to waters of the state.

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan – The SWPPP would need to be developed and implemented to address the specific water quality concerns for the construction period of the proposed NCS Project upon request of the CCRWQCB. The SWPPP would be developed to meet the following objectives:

• To identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity (stormwater discharges) from the construction site.

• To identify, construct, implement, and maintain BMPs to reduce or eliminate pollutants in stormwater discharges and authorize non-stormwater discharges from the construction area during construction.

• To develop a maintenance schedule for BMPs installed during construction designed to reduce or eliminate pollutants after construction is completed (post-construction BMPs).

The SWPPP would be developed in advance of construction activity in accordance with the General Permit and shall be implemented concurrent with commencement of construction activities. The City would propose to amend the SWPPP whenever there is a change in construction operations, which may affect the discharge of pollutants to surface waters, ground waters, or a municipal storm sewer system. The SWPPP is considered a report that shall be made available to the public by the CCRWQCB under CWA Section 308(b).

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board—Riparian Buffer Zone Work Exemption – In the CCRWQCB Basin Plan, a filter strip consisting of undisturbed soil and riparian vegetation or its equivalent shall be maintained between significant land disturbance activities and the water course. A minimum width of 30 feet measured along the ground surface to the highest anticipated water line shall be maintained during construction activities.

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board—Waste Discharge Requirements— General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. 01-119, NPDES No. CAG993001) – A low-threat discharge permit would be required for water discharges associated with testing and flushing portions of the pipeline following construction and during the ongoing operations and maintenance. Low-threat discharges are defined as: “discharges containing minimal amounts of pollutants and that pose little or no threat to water quality and the environment.” Examples of low-threat discharges allowed under this program include discharges associated with maintenance, hydrostatic testing, and disinfection of uncontaminated water supply pipelines. The permit application requirements are specified in the above-referenced RWQCB Order.

8.2.3 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County General Plan – Section 5.4 of the General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994a) describes policies and programs regarding water quality in Santa Cruz coastal waters. These policies

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-2 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality include wastewater discharge treatment requirements and prohibitions, including disturbances in coastal waters and wetlands and placement or discharge of pollutants and dredged material.

The County of Santa Cruz Erosion Control Ordinance of the County Code requires preparation of an erosion control plan and compliance with other measures designed to protect the environment. These measures include the following:

• Maintain runoff rates at or below predevelopment levels

• Retain on-site runoff by filtering it back into the soil whenever possible and always where percolation rates are 2 inches per hour or greater

• If retention is not possible, detain runoff with detention basins or other runoff collection devices and release it in a controlled fashion, possibly into pipes or lined ditches

• Direct released runoff flows into established vegetation, paved areas, or other adequate energy dissipaters, such as rock riprap

• Keep sediment on-site by filtering runoff with gravel berms, vegetated filter strips, catch basins, or the like

• Use berms or swales to divert runoff away from sensitive areas, such as unstable slopes

• Revegetate and protect exposed soils by October 15 of the year

The County of Santa Cruz Water Quality Control Ordinance of the County Code (Ord. 2021, 6/1/74) requires a permit to conduct any act or acts which may result in stream turbidity in excess of the standards contained in Sections 16.24.030 and 16.24.040 of the County Code and is not exempt pursuant to Section 16.24.050 of the County Code.

Santa Cruz County Local Coastal Plan (LCP) – The LCP is embodied as part of the County’s General Plan. It fulfills requirements of the California Coastal Act, and consists of a land use plan, ordinance implementation, and any specific plans that may be adopted by the county for the Coastal Zone. Various ordinances adopted by the county implement policies of both the LCP and the remainder of the General Plan. Among the ordinances relevant to water resources are the County Grading Ordinance (Chapter 16.20 of the County Code) and the Erosion Control Ordinance (Chapter 16.22). The Grading Ordinance includes provisions for obtaining grading permits, eliminating hazardous conditions, excavations, and fills. The erosion control ordinance requires development of an erosion control plan and requires implementation of runoff controls.

The Santa Cruz County Riparian Corridor Protection Ordinance (County Code Section 16.30) of the County General Plan was developed to protect water quality and sensitive habitats. It requires that a buffer strip of riparian vegetation be protected for a distance of 50 feet measured horizontally from the high-water mark on perennial streams and 30 feet measured horizontally from the high water mark on intermittent streams (CC Section 16.30.040). Exemptions are allowed for (CC Section 16.30.050):

“The continuance of any preexisting nonagricultural use, provide such use has not lapsed for a period of one year or more.”

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-3 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Exceptions and conditioned exceptions to the riparian corridor setbacks may be granted through an application process (CC Section 16.30.060). Exceptions may be granted where:

• There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property;

• The exception is necessary for the proper design and function of some permitted or existing activity on the property;

• The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property downstream or in the area in which the project is located;

• Granting of the exception, in the Coastal Zone, will not reduce or adversely impact the riparian corridor, and there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative; and

• Granting of the exception is in accordance with the Riparian Corridor Ordinance, the General Plan, and the Local Land Use Plan.

8.3 Existing Hydrology and Water Quality Conditions

8.3.1 Watersheds The proposed Project traverses numerous coastal draining watersheds before reaching the Coast Pump Station on the San Lorenzo River (Figure 8-1). The City currently operates and maintains flow diversions on Reggiardo, Liddell, Laguna and Majors creeks. In addition, there are several non-City- operated diversions present throughout these watersheds (Figure 8-2). The delineated watersheds can be divided into primary and secondary watersheds, and the watercourses can generally be divided into two main stream types: perennial and intermittent. The primary watersheds consist of the larger watersheds and are named for the primary watercourse or landscape feature. These include Liddell, Yellow Bank, Laguna, Majors, Scaroni, Baldwin, Lombardi Gulch, Sandy Flat Gulch, Wilder, Moore, Arroyo Seco, Pogonip, Lower San Lorenzo, and Urban San Lorenzo. The secondary watersheds are distinguished by the primary tributaries of other landscape features. These include East Branch Liddell Creek, Y Creek, Old Dairy Gulch, Peasley Gulch, Adams Creek, Cave Gulch, and Powder Mill Creek. The drainage area within each of these primary watersheds is shown on Table 8-1.

There are nine perennial streams within the Project area: Liddell Creek, East Branch Liddell Creek, Laguna Creek, Majors Creek, Gordola Creek, Baldwin Creek, Wilder Creek, one branch of Moore Creek, and Arroyo Seco Creek. These streams have flowing water year-round under average rainfall conditions. There are nine intermittent streams: Yellow Bank Creek, Y Creek, Scaroni Creek, Lombardi Gulch, Sandy Flat Gulch, Old Dairy Gulch, Peasley Gulch, the east branch of Moore Creek, and Pogonip Creek. These streams dry up during portions of the dry season and have under- average rainfall conditions (Biotic Resources Group 2002). Information on watershed conditions, geomorphology and hydrology for Majors Creek, Laguna Creek, and Liddell Creek is presented below. Detailed watershed descriptions and hydrology are not provided for streams where the project has a minor influence such as a single pipeline crossing.

8.3.1.1 Liddell Creek

Liddell Creek is a second order stream that flows into the Pacific Ocean at Bonny Doon Beach along the North Coast area of Santa Cruz County directly south of Davenport. Liddell Creek drains in a

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-4 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality southwest direction off of Ben Lomond Mountain. The watershed area is approximately 4.0 mi2. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 0 feet at the mouth to approximately 1,300 feet at its headwaters near Smith Grade Road. Liddell Creek consists of three distinct forks, the Middle, East, and West branches. The approximate stream channel length from the mouth of Liddell to the mainstem Liddell Creek headwaters is 3.2 miles. The City diversion on Liddell Creek is located at a springbox on a tributary to the East Branch of Liddell Creek near its headwaters, approximately 2.5 miles upstream from the mouth of Liddell Creek (Figure 8-5). The channel gradient from the diversion to the mouth is approximately 3 percent along the East Branch of Liddell Creek. Debris jams form multiple partial barriers and a complete anadromous fish migration barrier at a distance of 1.29 miles upstream from the creek mouth just downstream of the confluence of the Middle and East branches.

The Middle and East Branch Liddell watersheds are primarily (76 percent) composed of tertiary marine sedimentary rocks. The Santa Cruz Mudstone makes up about 48 percent of the Middle and East Branch basins, and is composed primarily of silica-rich mudstones and sandy siltstones. About 26 percent of the watersheds are made up of the Santa Margarita sandstone, and the majority is concentrated in the upper East Branch watershed. The Santa Margarita formation consists of massive fine to coarse-grained arkosic sandstones with poor cementation of the sand grains. The Santa Margarita formation is weak and friable, and very erodible once the overlying soil layer is removed. The channel on the East Branch contains large amounts of fine sediment, and bed particles have an average 85 percent embeddedness (ESA 2001), which in part can be attributed to the large amount of highly erosive Santa Margarita sandstone.

Approximately 11 percent of the Middle and East Branch Liddell watersheds are composed of marble (metamorphosed limestone) outcrops. RMC Pacific Materials operates a marble quarry near the City’s Liddell Spring Diversion near the headwaters of the East Branch Liddell Creek. Runoff from the marble quarry is routed through two sediment detention basins. The lower basin, which is the smaller of the two, failed in the winter of 1999-2000 and reportedly again in March 2001. The streambed below the basins are filled with fine sediment, potentially from the basins’ failure or poor performance (ESA 2001).

8.3.1.2 Laguna Creek

Laguna Creek is a second order stream that flows into the Pacific Ocean along the North Coast area of Santa Cruz County. Laguna Creek drains in a southwest direction off of Ben Lomond Mountain. The watershed area is approximately 7.8 mi2. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 0 feet at the mouth to approximately 2,420 feet at its headwaters near Empire Grade Road. The approximate stream channel length from the mouth of Laguna Creek to its headwaters is 8.5 miles. The City diversion on Laguna Creek is directly upstream (0.1 mile) of the Reggiardo Creek confluence, which is approximately 4.2 miles upstream from the mouth of Laguna Creek (Figure 8-4). The channel gradient from the diversion to the mouth is about 3 percent, and the channel gradient upstream of the diversion to the headwaters is approximately 6 percent.

The channel from the Laguna Creek mouth to about mile 1.43 is low gradient (approximately 1 percent) and moderately confined. At this point, a series of boulder cascades form a complete barrier to anadromous fish passage. In this reach, substrate is a mixture of sand, gravel, and cobbles, and aquatic instream cover is abundant and diverse. Above mile 1.43 to the City diversion, the channel gradient steepens to about 3.4 percent and the valley walls become more confined. More detailed information of the distribution of geomorphic features related to habitat type and fish migration barriers are provided in Section 9.3.4.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-5 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

A significant portion of the Laguna Creek watershed is limestone and marble outcroppings, commonly referred to as karst topography. The karst topography has a significant influence on streamflow and summer baseflow by producing multiple springs within the watershed. The karst topography is also more resistant to erosion than other material in nearby watersheds, which results in reduced fine sediment loads. The Laguna watershed also has granitic formations that provide a good source of gravel and cobble. This is evident in the reaches downstream of the City’s diversion where large cobble and gravel dominate the streambed substrate.

8.3.1.3 Majors Creek

Majors Creek is a second order stream that flows into the Pacific Ocean along the North Coast area of Santa Cruz County. Majors Creek drains in a southwest direction off of Ben Lomond Mountain. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 0 feet at the mouth to approximately 1800 feet at its headwaters near Felton peak. The approximate stream channel length from the mouth of Majors to its headwaters is 5.9 miles. The City diversion on Majors Creek is located approximately 2.2 miles upstream from the mouth of Majors Creek (Figure 8-3). The channel gradient from the diversion to the mouth is about 3 percent, and the channel gradient upstream of the diversion to the headwaters is approximately 6 percent.

Downstream of the diversion, the channel has a high gradient, as exemplified by a cascade and step- pool bedform. The Rosgen channel type for the majority of the channel below the diversion is a B2/B5 (alternating between boulder and sand dominated). The channel has a low width-to-depth ratio, and is well-entrenched. (i.e., vertically contained within the valley), with little opportunity for over- bank flows. About 0.7 mile upstream of the mouth, Majors enters a short reach (0.15 mile) of extremely steep (>10 percent gradient) bedrock and boulder cascades. This reach is an A1a+ Rosgen channel type and forms a complete barrier for fish passage at distance 0.71 mile upstream from the creek mouth. Downstream of the boulder cascade section, the channel gradient decreases and the channel becomes less entrenched as the valley walls widen. Majors Creek exhibits a moderate level of chronic and acute turbidity.

The dominating presence of sand in pools, high embeddedness of riffles, the sand deposition in the lee of boulders and large woody debris (LWD) is indicative of a transport-limited system, where the sediment supply is greater than the capacity of the stream to transport its sediment load (ENTRIX 2002b). A large portion of the Majors Creek watershed is underlain by the Santa Margarita formation, which is composed of friable, fine to very coarse-grained sandstone (Brabb et al. 1997). The majority of the watershed upstream of the City’s diversion is privately held and was historically logged for timber production. Old logging roads remain in several places in the watershed. These factors likely contribute to high fine sediment loads evident throughout the Majors Creek system. About 2000 feet below the City’s diversion, Majors Creek begins flowing through a zone dominated by igneous, quartz diorite rock. The quartz diorite is more resistant to erosion relative to other rocks within the watershed, and leads to a more confined, steep valley wall section with a high gradient. It may also serve as a good source of gravel, which was evident in the anadromous reach during a habitat characterization conducted in 2003 (refer to Section 9.3.4).

8.3.2 Precipitation Rainy winter periods and dry summer months are typical of the Mediterranean climate in the central coastal areas of California, including the Santa Cruz Mountains. Mean annual precipitation along the coast is about 26 inches, but increases to about 50 inches at higher elevations near the headwaters of the Project area streams. Most precipitation falls between the months of November to April. Pacific

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-6 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality frontal storms in combination with orographic lifting along the coastal range generate intense periods of precipitation. Streams in the Project area tend to exhibit “flashy” flow conditions (rapidly rising, then falling) in response to these winter storms. During the summer months when there is no precipitation, groundwater is the source of baseflow.

The streams in the City, specifically the east branch of Moore Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, and Pogonip Creek within the Project area, are small, heavily urbanized watersheds that only have flow during the wetter times of the year. The amount of streamflow in the watercourses that flow through the City is seasonally variable. The period from May to October often experiences no rainfall at all, leaving only stored groundwater as a source of streamflow for the dry summer months.

8.3.3 Gaging Records Historic gaging records for streams draining the Project area are sparse, covering a relatively short period from 1970 to 1976 on Laguna and Majors creeks (Table 8-2). No other streamflow gaging records are known to be available. The mean annual flood (corresponds to a 2.33-year recurrence interval) for Laguna Creek and Majors Creek was derived in a recent study (ESA 2001) by extrapolation from the nearby San Vicente gaging station which has a longer period of record (14 years). Using Log-Pearson Type III flood frequency curves for the extended Laguna and Majors Creek flood records, the bankfull discharges (1.5-year to 2.0-year recurrence interval) are 70 to 120 cfs on Laguna Creek and 120 to 200 cfs on Majors Creek.

Kleinfelder and Associates (1982) estimated monthly flows (acre-feet) on Laguna and Majors creeks based on a regression analysis that extended the existing gage record over the period of 1921 to 1982. The estimated mean annual flow from the contributing watershed above the City’s diversion locations was 3,598 AF and 3,087 AF, for Laguna Creek and Majors Creek, respectively. The mean monthly flows were greatest for January through April. Mean monthly flows ranged from 524 to 664 AF on Laguna Creek during these months. Estimated mean monthly wet season flows on Majors Creek ranged from 363 to 687 AF. The wettest month was February for both creeks and the driest months were September and October.

The most recent extrapolation of the Laguna and Majors creek streamflow gaging records, was developed by Linsley, Kraeger & Associates for the time period of 1937 to 1996. This analysis also included estimated flow at the Liddell Spring. The estimated unimpaired flow data was used as the input to the Confluence Model developed for the City’s Integrated Water Plan (Fiske, 2003). The Confluence Model is a water resource planning tool developed by Gary Fiske and Associates that simulates the real-world operations of a water system by incorporating various water supply sources, transmission facilities and processing plants, water demand, and water conservation strategies. The Confluence Model data presented in this document is the estimated average daily flow upstream of the City’s diversions.

It should be noted that the estimated flow data do not represent flow or contributions to instream flow below the City’s diversions on Liddell, Laguna, and Majors creeks. Contributions to instream flow may include overland runoff from the lower portions of the watersheds, emergent groundwater or tributary flow, or the influences of other diversions that exist on these streams. The City is currently developing a flow-monitoring program to quantify flow conditions in the lower portions of Liddell, Laguna, and Majors creek watersheds. The flow data will provide additional information to assist with understanding the incremental contribution to low-flow conditions provided by emergent groundwater along the length of the North Coast streams below the diversion facilities. The flow monitoring program may also provide insight on the influence of other surface water diversions and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-7 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality groundwater pumping along these streams. Collectively these consumptive water uses may influence the availability of aquatic habitat in the lower reaches of Liddell, Laguna and Majors Creeks.

8.3.4 Mean Daily Flow Mean daily flow estimates by month over the hydrologic period of 1937 to 1996 (Fiske 2003) above the diversions on Liddell, Laguna/Reggiardo, and Majors creeks are characterized in Table 8-3. Reggiardo and Laguna creeks are modeled as a combined unit. The data indicate that February is the wettest month of the year and September is the driest. Reggiardo and Laguna creeks produce the highest flows on a monthly and annual basis. Mean daily flow during the wet season (January through February) are greater than 18 cfs, 10 cfs, and 8 cfs, for Laguna, Majors and Liddell Spring, respectively. Mean daily flow during the dry season is less than 3 cfs, 2 cfs and 2.1 cfs for Laguna, Majors and Liddell Spring, respectively.

8.3.5 Lagoon Formation and Breaching Each of the North Coast streams flow into a coastal lagoon before entering the Pacific Ocean. Coastal lagoons are formed by wave action depositing sand across the mouth of a stream and the streamflow forming a freshwater pond behind (upstream) the sand deposits (barrier beach). In general, coastal lagoons are most readily formed during late spring, summer and fall when streamflow is low and beach building processes are most active.

The size (surface area and volume) of any particular lagoon primarily depends upon local topography and the ratio between base summer streamflow and passive water loss (i.e., seepage and evapotranspiration). For the North Coast streams, Laguna Creek has the largest and most complex lagoon system, approximately 0.5 acre of lagoon and 1 acre of freshwater marsh in late summer. During late summer, the lagoon on Majors Creek is about 0.1 acre, where as Liddell Creek simply percolates into a sandy depression behind its barrier beach. During winter when base streamflow is higher and passive water loss is lower, these lagoon systems vary in size from about 4 acres on Laguna Creek to 1 acre on Majors and Liddell creeks.

Coastal lagoons periodically drain to the ocean with the frequency and duration of drainage being dependent upon the interplay of tidal action and streamflow. For small coastal lagoons, as exist with the North Coast streams, streamflow is the dominant factor opening and maintaining a lagoon outlet. On shore sediment delivery by wave action is the dominant factor closing off the lagoon outlet and temporarily halting streamflow to the ocean.

The small coastal lagoons associated with the North Coast streams are opened by a “Fill and Spill” erosional process. Streamflow fills the lagoon until its water surface elevation spills over the crest of the barrier beach. Water flowing over the barrier beach erodes the unconsolidated sand down-cutting and widening the outlet, thereby releasing even larger amounts of water. Once underway, this erosional process is irreversible until outflow from the lagoon subsides. Much like a dam-break hydrograph, outflow from a breaching lagoon is large but of short duration. Sustained outflow is dependent upon streamflow.

Each of the North Coast streams has a small perennial baseflow from springs in the headwaters and emergent groundwater within the streambed in the lower reaches. This baseflow is in part diverted or is small enough that it is not sufficient to maintain an opening to the ocean much of the year. Therefore, these streams are dependent upon rainfall for streamflow that is sufficient to breach the lagoon. The timing and magnitude of rainstorms is the primary factor influencing this process. A comparison of lagoon volume and cumulative rainstorm runoff volume is an appropriate means of

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-8 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality estimating the timing of lagoon opening. Analyzing the frequency of cumulative rainstorm runoff exceeding lagoon volume is one means of estimating the frequency of lagoon opening during different water year types (i.e. wet, normal, dry).

In 2003, Philip Williams and Associates (PWA) evaluated the lagoon breaching and forming function of Liddell, Laguna and Majors creeks using a Lagoon Conceptual Model. The model is based on the fact that lagoon outlets are maintained and scoured by a combination of tidal and freshwater flows. In small lagoons the freshwater inflow is dominant. Wave power and on-shore sediment transport counter-balance the scour effects of freshwater and tidal flows by building up the beach berm. In the winter, high energy waves erode the beach berm and during the summer waves deposit sand on the beach. PWA classified the Liddell, Laguna and Majors creek lagoons as Type III freshwater lagoons, which indicates the lagoon will open infrequently during the winter months when creek flows are high. The frequency and duration of lagoon openings is controlled by the frequency, magnitude and duration of rain events and the associated streamflow. This process may be influenced by various diversions and groundwater pumping that occurs on each of the streams.

8.3.6 Water Quality Water quality information is collected by the City’s Water Department at their diversion sites. Data is collected approximately every two weeks. Data relevant to fish habitat includes temperature and turbidity information. Turbidity and suspended sediment data were recently collected (ESA. 2001) on Yellow Bank, Liddell, and Laguna creeks. Turbidity is a measure of the optical property of water that scatters light, and is directly related to the presence of dissolved and suspended particulate matter. Suspended sediment is carried in suspension by streamflow. Generally, as streamflow increases, turbidity and suspended sediment increase.

8.3.6.1 Liddell Creek

For the Liddell Spring site, records from 1974 to the present demonstrates that temperature of the water welling from the ground at the Liddell Spring site is always suitable for steelhead ranging from 8.5 to 19.2ºC with an average of 14.2ºC. Turbidity levels are typically low within the spring box with a median of 0.2 NTUs over the 1974 to present data record. A few spikes in turbidity, up to a high of 300 NTUs, were found in the winter months between January and April.

Daily water temperatures were collected by the City of Santa Cruz Water Department (Water Department) in the anadromous reach of Liddell Creek (just below the confluence with the West Branch) from July 15 to October 28, 2003 as part of the City’s expanded monitoring program. For the July through October period, average temperatures were warmest in August (14.1ºC) and then cooled into the fall (September 13.7ºC and October 12.4ºC). Maximum water temperatures were highest in August and September (15.6ºC for both) while temperatures in July reached a maximum of 14.8ºC and October was 14.1ºC. Minimum temperatures ranged from a high in August (12.1ºC) to a low of 10.2ºC in October. These data suggest that temperatures in the anadromous reach of Liddell Creek are suitable for steelhead during the summer and fall months. The City is continuing the water quality study at this site.

Potential water quality issues for steelhead may include the following:

• The extensive canopy is likely to provide adequate protection against high temperatures in most areas. Elevated temperatures in localized areas of the watershed may occur in association with the release of ponded water from the RMC Pacific Materials sedimentation ponds. These ponds are

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-9 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

typically exposed to full sunlight and some proportion of the retained runoff is likely released after peak storm flows have receded.

• Dissolved oxygen levels are expected to be satisfactory in the majority of the watershed due to the steep channel conditions. Oxygen depletion may occur in isolated areas where dissolved iron is discharged to the creek. ESA (2001) noted the presence of extensive iron precipitation at the outfall of one of the RMC Pacific Materials sediment retention ponds on the Middle Branch. These conditions are unlikely to influence conditions downstream in the anadromous reach.

• Turbidity during and immediately following runoff events or during releases from the RMC Pacific Materials sediment retention basins is expected to be relatively high.

• The only known activities in the watershed that are could contribute potentially hazardous chemicals to Liddell Creek are spills that could come from quarry activities or spills along Bonny Doon Road.

8.3.6.2 Laguna Creek

The City has collected water quality data at their Laguna Creek Diversion in the upper watershed. These data (1974 to present) show that water temperatures are suitable for steelhead ranging from 5.5 to 18.5ºC with a mean of 11.3ºC. Turbidity is also typically low (median of 0.3 NTUs). Only two measurements in the City’s data set were relatively high (>20 NTU) and both these measurements (28.1 and 77.4 NTUs) were during the rainy season. Turbidity is expected to be high more frequently than this data suggests because the City may terminate diversion operations during storm events when turbidity exceeds approximately 20 NTUs. This data does indicate that turbidity levels quickly recede after storm events to lower, background levels. The City has observed that turbidity often increases during storm events, which can result in the City discontinuing diversion operations (at turbidities greater than 20 NTU).

The City is beginning to collect water quality data in the anadromous reach. Daily water temperatures were collected at a site approximately 0.25 miles upstream of the mouth of Laguna Creek from July 15 to November 14, 2003. For the July through November period, average temperatures were warmest in August (14.3ºC) and then cooled into the fall (September 13.7ºC, October 11.9ºC, and November 10.6ºC). Maximum water temperatures were highest in July and August (both 15.6ºC), similar in September (15.2ºC) but cooled in October (14.1ºC) and November (12.9ºC) as would be expected. Minimum temperatures range from a high in August (14.4ºC) to a low in November (11.7ºC). In general, these data suggest that water temperatures in the anadromous reach of Laguna Creek are suitable for steelhead during the summer and fall months.

Potential water quality issues may include the following:

• The extensive canopy is likely to provide adequate protection against high temperatures in most areas.

• Dissolved oxygen levels are expected to be satisfactory in the majority of the watershed due to the steep channel conditions. In the lower portion of Laguna Creek, which runs along the coastal plain near the ocean, the lower stream gradient could lead to discontinuous pools during the low flow season that could affect dissolved oxygen conditions.

• Turbidity during and immediately following runoff events is expected to be relatively high.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-10 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

• There are no known activities in the watershed that are likely to have contributed potentially hazardous chemicals to Laguna Creek.

8.3.6.3 Majors Creek

The City collects water quality data at their Majors Creek Diversion site. Data collected from 1974 to the present show that water temperatures in this part of the watershed are suitable for steelhead (mean temperate: 11.2ºC, range: 5.5 to 17.7ºC). Turbidity is typically low, with a median of 0.8 NTUs but can increase substantially, likely associated with stormflow. Four high (>20 NTUs) turbidity measurements are part of the record with a maximum turbidity reading of 291 NTUs. As noted for Laguna Creek, all higher turbidity measurements occur during the winter rainy season. Further, the City has observed that turbidity increases substantially during stormflow conditions. The data indicate that turbidity decreases rapidly back to low levels after storm events.

No data were found regarding water quality conditions in the anadromous reach of Majors Creek. Potential water quality issues in the creek include:

• Erosion of the Santa Margarita sandstone formation in the upper watershed contributes to heavy sediment loading to the creek and high turbidity levels during storm runoff events. This erosion leads to the observed sand deposits in pool and riffle habitat of the non-anadromous reach and predominantly sand substrate found in the anadromous reach.

• Temperature and dissolved oxygen levels are not expected to be a problem in Majors Creek in most years and seasons due to the extensive canopy and steep stream gradient. In the lower portion of Majors Creek, which runs along the coastal plain near the ocean, the lower stream gradient could lead to discontinuous pools during the low flow season that could affect temperature and dissolved oxygen conditions.

• With the exception of severe sedimentation there are no known water quality problems in the stream.

8.3.6.4 Summary

The data collected by the City indicates that the diverted streams typically have very good water quality conditions except during storm events when suspended sediment loads may increase in response to runoff from upper portions of the watershed. These watersheds are strongly influenced by their geologic formations, and current and historical land uses such as mining, logging, roads, and residential development that contribute to soil erosion. The ESA (2001) study on Liddell, Yellow Bank, and Laguna creeks found that Yellow Bank Creek had the highest turbidity of the three streams, Laguna Creek had the lowest turbidity, and Liddell Creek was between the two. The higher turbidity of Yellow Bank Creek is most likely related to the lithology of the watershed, which is dominated to a greater extent by sedimentary rock in comparison to Liddell and Laguna creeks, which are partially composed of metamorphic and igneous rock. The lower density sedimentary rocks, particularly Santa Cruz Mudstone, readily breaks down into silts and clays, which tend to have a disproportionately large influence on turbidity levels.

The amount and type of development in a watershed would also influence turbidity and suspended sediment levels. Liddell Creek was identified in the ESA (2001) study as having experienced the most disturbance, manifest as very high acute turbidity and moderate chronic turbidity, in comparison to other coastal draining streams in the Davenport area. Disturbance of the Santa Margarita Sandstone

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-11 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality formation due to mining, roads, and the existing water pipeline are cited as sources of accelerated turbidity.

Yellow Bank Creek is also characterized as a disturbed watershed with high chronic and acute turbidity. The channel was observed to be incised (ESA 2001), and an active knickpoint was identified 100 feet downstream of the City’s water pipeline. The incision process is believed to be responsible for the high chronic and acute turbidity levels. Laguna Creek is described as having a moderate level of chronic and acute turbidity. Laguna Road along Y Creek (a tributary to Laguna Creek) and incision on Y Creek through the Santa Margarita Sandstone formation have been cited as accelerated sources of turbidity to Laguna Creek (ESA 2001).

A key issue in both the Liddell and Majors creek watersheds is the substantial area in the upper watersheds composed of the erosive Santa Margarita formation and areas of historical or current ground disturbance (e.g., RMC Pacific Materials Quarry and historic logging on private lands). These streams receive a sediment load that is greater than the current managed hydrologic flow regime can adequately flush from the system. These factors in combination result in the deposition of substantial amounts of sediment in the non-anadromous reaches. Lack of gaging records to determine storm-flow and sediment transport dynamics is also an issue.

8.4 Potential Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts

8.4.1 Thresholds of Significance In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on water resources if during or after construction it would result in any of the following:

• Degrade water quality such that the existing or future beneficial uses of the water would be reduced.

• Substantially alter drainage patterns, such as to result in substantial erosion or siltation, or increase the potential for flooding.

• Reduce the availability of, or accessibility to, one or more of the beneficial uses of water resources.

• Alter the existing pattern of movement of water, such that the existing uses of the water within or outside the Project area would be adversely affected.

• Cause existing or proposed water quality standards to be exceeded or would require an exemption from existing permit requirements in order for the alternative to proceed.

• Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from flood hazards.

8.4.2 Impact Methodology The methodology for analyzing impacts of the proposed Project alternatives on hydrology and water quality included eliminating impacts that are not relevant to the project, followed by analysis of the significance of the remaining, relevant impacts.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-12 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Potential impacts associated with to the availability and accessibility of existing water resources are not relevant to the proposed Project alternatives, because no increases in diversions or alterations of the existing flow regime are proposed. Impacts related to increases in potential for flooding and risks due to flood hazards are also not relevant to the proposed Project alternatives because no alteration of the existing flow regime is proposed and no new structure of any kind is proposed to be located within the floodplain of any stream. The alternatives proposed for the Laguna and Majors diversions would result in spillway gates built into the existing diversion structures. Operation of the spillways and associated automation would result in peak flows being passed through the dams with the spillway gates open. Thus, peak flows and the sediment that the peak flow transports would move downstream unimpeded. This is intended to restore, in part, the historical sediment transport regime, but does not represent a change in the flow regime as peak flows currently spill over the existing diversion structures.

Impacts relevant to the proposed Project alternatives include degradation of water quality due to sediment generated for transport downstream and alteration of existing drainage patterns due to increases in impermeable areas. Impacts involving degradation of water quality due to generation of sediment can be divided into those caused by erosion within the riparian zone, frac-outs during directional drilling, and construction work within a stream channel. The significance of impacts caused by erosion was largely determined by the amount of work required within the riparian zone and the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures. The significance of impacts caused by frac- outs was based on the amount of directional drilling proposed. The significance of impacts caused by work within a stream channel was based on the likelihood of streamflow in the channel at the time of construction, as well as the potential effectiveness of mitigation measures.

8.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts Construction and O&M activities of the proposed Project are expected to have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. The proposed pipeline routes and diversion modifications would not violate any water quality standards. The City may be required to obtain a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver and likely a General Stormwater Discharge Permit from the CCRWQCB for construction of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would not alter existing drainage patterns through the alteration of a stream or upland areas, as the Project area would be regraded to pre-construction contours. In a few areas where bench cuts could be necessary (e.g., first 1,000 feet of the Liddell Existing Alignment and first 8,000 feet of the Majors Existing Alignment), a permanent change to the grade would be made, but it is not anticipated to result in alteration of the drainage pattern in the area. Any excess soil would be removed from the site to avoid potential sedimentation in the stream.

In-channel construction work would be limited due to the construction methods proposed for the replacement of the pipeline. Where the pipeline would be suspended across the channel or attached to an existing bridge, efforts would be made to install the pipeline without accessing the channel. However, in a few cases (i.e., LAG-03 and LAG/LID-02) the pipeline currently spans the creek on supporting piers. For these crossings, it is anticipated that some in-channel work would be necessary. Similarly, construction at LAG/LID-04 and LAG/LID ALT-01 would require in-channel work, because these ephemeral crossings would be installed via trenching when the channels are dry. In these areas, the channel grade would be restored to original conditions. Still other crossings (e.g., NCP-02 and NCP-11) would be trenched but would not impact the streambeds, because the roadbeds are constructed on fill over a culvert that contains the creek. Trenching at these crossings would not impact the watercourses.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-13 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Where in-channel work is necessary, temporary diversion dams may be needed to minimize the potential for erosion into flowing creeks. Such diversions would route water into pipelines around the work site, but would temporarily interrupt the flow within the dewatered reach. Diversion activities may be undertaken as needed to minimize the potential for sediment transport into the waters of a creek during in-channel work. Dewatering is a temporary disruption that would not result in the disruption of flow over the majority of the watercourse, and would minimize potential impacts to water quality (turbidity).

The remainder of the crossings would be installed using directional drilling. This construction method was selected because it is the least intrusive and can often be completed without any adverse affects on or intrusion into the channel and associated riparian zone. However, frac-outs can occur during directional drilling, which can increase sediment input into the stream. Temporary increases in turbidity or sedimentation could be adverse if the rate of sediment generation exceeds the rate of sediment transport in a stream. During the boring operation, bentonite is used to lubricate the bore and help remove cuttings from the borehole. The bentonite mixture can seep to the surface within a stream channel (i.e., frac-out). See Chapter 7 (Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources) for additional information.

Seepage could happen if bores encounter fractures in the underlying rock, and bentonite pressures are great enough to allow the material to surface. Several measures would be implemented to minimize the potential for bentonite seeps, including: requiring boring crews to strictly monitor drilling fluid pressures, retaining containment equipment on-site, monitoring waters downstream of the crossing sites to quickly identify any seep, immediately stopping work if a seep into a stream is detected, immediately implementing containment measures that would be specified in the SWPPP, and adhering to agency reporting requirements. Containment equipment should include staked and floating silt barriers to isolate frac-out locations from flowing water.

There is potential for surface runoff to transport soil from disturbed areas into streams, which could result in temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream of the project route. Upland trenching spoils generated during construction would be stored on the project route for a short time (generally less than one day). To minimize the transport of soil to channels, the City would plan to backfill trenches at the end of each workday. Where backfilling is not feasible, proper erosion control practices would be established to eliminate or minimize transport of soil to channels, as described in the SWPPP. In general, the City would implement the erosion control measures identified in the SWPPP prepared for the proposed route, as necessary, to minimize transport of soil to streams. See Chapter 7 (Geology, Paleontology, Soils, and Mineral Resources) for additional information.

Refueling of vehicles and storage of fuel, oil, lubricants, or other fluids near surface waters could create a potential for contamination due to accidental release. If a spill should occur along the proposed Project or alternative routes, hazardous fluids could enter a stream during subsequent precipitation events, or groundwater through leaching. Contamination of the aquifer and nearby wells could occur. A mitigation measure that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level includes the implementation of a SWPPP to ensure protection of surface and groundwater resources. The City’s approved SPCC Plan should contain specific measures for restricting vehicle refueling areas to a distance (e.g., 100 feet) from any streambank or wetland. The SPCC Plan would provide measures for containing, confining, and clean-up response to accidental spills and releases. See Chapter 13 (Hazards and Hazardous Waste) for further information.

Proposed construction activities involve realigning or installing the pipeline through either trenching or directional drilling. Depth of the pipeline would likely not exceed 7 feet, except under special circumstances such as boring under streams. Except near stream crossings and potentially along

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-14 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality portions of the NCP Reach, the pipeline is not expected to come in contact with groundwater. Trenching, which would be necessary to install most of the pipeline, would only intercept near- surface groundwater and would not affect deeper aquifers. Trench dewatering may be necessary where the proposed construction intersects groundwater (potentially along portions of the NCP Reach). Dewatering could decrease water levels in the immediate area surrounding the trench. However, trench dewatering would be a temporary, short duration activity with less than significant impacts to aquifer recharge or to the groundwater table. As discussed above, groundwater near identified contamination sites along the NCP Reach Alternative route may be contaminated and would be handled appropriately (refer to Section 13.5.8).

The proposed Project would not impact groundwater recharge. A small area of disturbed surface soils would be compacted as a result of the installation of the proposed Project. The constructed impermeable surfaces associated with pump station construction (concrete building pads) represent a minor portion of the total groundwater recharge area in watersheds where substantially less than 10 percent of the watershed area is covered by impermeable surfaces. Table 8-4 summarizes the potential impact related to water quality.

8.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts resulting from construction and O&M activities for the specific sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. Specific sites and associated alternatives are discussed only where potentially significant impacts are anticipated to occur. If an alternative at a specific site is not expected to result in potential impacts, then it is not discussed below.

There are no construction-related impacts expected for Alternative 1 (No Project) of all diversion structures and pipeline reaches, since no construction activities are planned. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required for construction activities. For this reason, this alternative is generally not discussed at each site.

Due to the age of the pipeline, breaks and leaks of the pipeline may become more frequent in the future under the No Project alternative. Breaks that occur near erodible soil formations may increase sedimentation in the stream, thus affecting water quality. Emergency response activities and subsequent repairs may impact sensitive habitats. There are no mitigation measures under Alternative 1 (No Project). This impact is the same for all pipeline reaches and is not further discussed below.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Water Quality Impact R-1, Water Quality Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Water Quality Impact 1-1, Water Quality Impact 1-2, etc.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-15 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.5.1 Laguna Diversion Structure

8.5.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The diversion dam and operation of this facility appears to impede transport of cobble, gravel and sediment in the Laguna Creek watershed. Because these conditions currently exist, the resulting CEQA determination is no impact.

8.5.1.2 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact L-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

In-stream excavation and construction during the proposed modifications to the Laguna Diversion structure have the potential to generate sediment for downstream transport.

Mitigation Measures Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 and 8-4 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The alternative would result in a spillway gate built into the existing diversion structure. Operation of the spillway and associated automation would result in peak flows being passed through the dam with the spillway gate open (i.e., the gate is lowered). Thus, the peak flows and the sediment that the peak flows are transporting would move downstream unimpeded. This is intended to restore, in part, the historical sediment transport regime, which is considered an environmental benefit.

8.5.2 Majors Diversion Structure

8.5.2.1 Alternative 1 – No Project

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The diversion dam and operation of this facility appears to impede sediment transport in the Majors Creek watershed. It appears that erosion in the upper watershed, upstream of the diversion facility, is causing sediment loading in the stream. Parts of the upper watershed are located in the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation. Pools and riffles upstream and downstream of the diversion are filling with sediment and decreasing habitat availability for aquatic organisms, including California red- legged frogs and, to a lesser extent, steelhead (ENTRIX 2004) (see Chapter 9, Biological Resources, Section 9.3.4.1). Because these conditions currently exist, the resulting CEQA determination is no impact.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-16 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.5.2.2 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact M-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

In-stream excavation and construction during the proposed modifications to the Majors Diversion structure have the potential to generate sediment for downstream transport.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 and 8-4 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Existing bedload (i.e., sand deposits) in the non-anadromous reach downstream of the diversion will likely be mobilized and transported downstream when the historic sediment transport regime is restored. Transport of this additional sediment load may result in increased turbidity and sediment deposition in the anadromous reach for a period of time. The extent and duration of this impact will be dependent upon the magnitude and frequency of the storm events that occur in the years immediately following the diversion modifications. This may have a short-term potentially significant impact on water quality in Majors Creek. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified.

8.5.3 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

8.5.3.1 LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 1-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

Three creek crossings are found in the existing alignment. These crossings could be directionally drilled, trenched, or suspended over the channel. Frac-outs could occur during directional drilling, which could increase sediment input into the stream.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 and 8-2 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

O&M of the pipeline in this reach consists of vegetation maintenance along the pipeline ROW. No potential impacts on hydrology or water quality are anticipated.

8.5.3.2 LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 1-2: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-17 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 and 8-2 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

8.5.4 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

8.5.4.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 2-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

There are four stream crossings in the existing Laguna/Liddell alignment, including two ephemeral drainages (LAG/LID-01 and -04) and two perennial crossings (LAG/LID-02 and -03). Directional drilling could occur at crossings LAG/LID-01 and -03, which would require steps to address frac-outs should they occur, and associated water quality impacts. In-channel work could be required at LAG/LID-02 to shore up supporting trestles. Such work could require temporary dewatering of the channel. The potential to affect water quality at LAG/LID-02 and -03 exists.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1 and 8-2 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

O&M of the pipeline in this reach consists of vegetation maintenance along the pipeline ROW. No potential impacts on hydrology or water quality are anticipated.

8.5.4.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

The alternative alignment removes all sensitive stream crossings and riparian habitat from the construction zone. It is anticipated that there would be no need to disrupt any watercourses. The one stream crossing, LAG/LID ALT-01, is ephemeral, and construction would occur when the channel is naturally dry. Work would occur in places in the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation. However, the potential to impact water quality is considered less than significant with appropriate precautions for soil erosion control (see Section 7.5.5).

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

This alternative would eliminate the need for vegetation maintenance. O&M activities are not expected to have an impact on water quality or hydrology.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-18 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.5.5 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

8.5.5.1 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 3-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

Four creek crossings occur along the existing alignment, three on Laguna Creek and one on Y Creek. The pipeline is proposed to be suspended over each of the four creek crossings. LAG-03 and LAG-04 currently span the creek, although some modification to these structures, or possible replacement, may require work in the channel. Work would not occur within the flowing channel without suitable sediment control practices, and possibly a temporary diversion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-1, 8-2, and 8-4 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

O&M of the pipeline in this reach consists of vegetation maintenance and maintenance of erosion control structures along the pipeline ROW. No potential impacts on hydrology or water quality are anticipated.

8.5.5.2 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Construction of the proposed pump station would slightly increase the impervious area for development of concrete building pads and other surfacing. The very small size of the building pads (approximately 400 square feet) would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. Impacts to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required.

Two creek crossings occur in the proposed Alternative 3 alignment (LAG ALT-01 and -04). At the first crossing, the pipeline would be attached to the existing bridge (if feasible), and at the second crossing, the pipeline would be suspended over Y Creek on a trestle as it is currently. There is a remote possibility that installation of new structures, or attachment of the pipeline to existing structures, particularly at LAG-04, may require temporary diversion structures as described in the Summary of Potential Impacts section above. However, all impacts associated with this resource area would be less than significant. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

This alternative provides an environmental benefit by eliminating the three stream crossings in Laguna Creek Canyon and eliminating the use of the old, access road, which historically has been subject to erosion and slope failure problems.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-19 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

8.5.6 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

8.5.6.1 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Installing the crossing at Gordola Creek (MAJ-01) has the potential to impact water quality. However, it is anticipated that this crossing would go dry by mid-summer, reducing the potential for water quality impacts to a less than significant level. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

There are no stream crossings in Majors Creek. However, the pipeline follows the creek closely in the riparian zone immediately downstream of the diversion and later in the steep forested slopes between the access road and the creek. Erosion is more likely on steep slopes, especially where vegetation must be removed and/or new bench cuts created. It is anticipated that access points will be required at a frequency greater that one per 500 feet of pipeline. A limited amount of soil erosion in areas with steep slopes may impact water quality.

Mitigation Measures: Erosion control BMPs are anticipated to minimize the potential for soil erosion and creek sedimentation. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation 8-4 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to less than significant. Also see Section 7.5.7.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

O&M of the pipeline in this reach would consist of vegetation maintenance and erosion control structure maintenance along the pipeline ROW. No potential impacts on hydrology or water quality are anticipated.

8.5.6.2 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-2: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

There are no stream crossings in Majors Creek. However, the pipeline would extend from the pump station east straight up a steep forested slope for an elevation gain of 200 feet. Erosion is more likely on steep slopes, especially where vegetation must be removed and/or new bench cuts created. A limited amount of soil erosion in areas with steep slopes may impact water quality. The alternative alignment would reduce impacts, relative to the existing alignment, because construction in the canyon would be limited to the first 800 feet of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-20 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measures 8-3 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Also see Section 7.5.7.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

O&M of the pipeline for this alignment would include mowing on the marine terraces and maintenance of erosion control structures on steep slopes. These activities are not expected to impact hydrology or water quality.

8.5.6.3 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-3: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

This alternative would have substantially less environmental impacts than the previous alternatives. Construction would be removed from the steep canyon slopes to the existing road bench cuts, making it easier to implement erosion control measures. The length of construction in the canyon would be reduced. Additionally, there would be substantially reduced disturbance of the forest undergrowth and reduced construction traffic on the steep canyon slopes between the access road and the pipeline ROW.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Placing the pipeline along the road will improve O&M activities because erosion control measures will be easier to implement and maintain. In addition, pipeline leaks that might result in erosion will be more readily observed. No significant impacts are anticipated.

8.5.7 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

8.5.7.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

The proposed Project consists of the installation of the pipe through either trenching or directional drilling. Depth of the pipe would likely not exceed 3 to 5 feet, except under special circumstances such as boring under streams. The depth-to-groundwater along this reach may be shallow in some areas, and therefore the pipe may come in contact with groundwater. Trench dewatering may be necessary where the proposed construction intersects the groundwater table. Dewatering could decrease water levels in the immediate area surrounding the trench. However, trench dewatering would be a temporary, short-term activity with less than significant impacts to aquifer recharge or to the groundwater table.

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 5-1: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-21 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality

Frac-outs could occur during directional drilling, which could increase sediment input into the stream. Temporary increases in turbidity or sedimentation could be adverse if the rate of sediment generation exceeds the rate of sediment transport in a stream.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8-2 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Also see Section 7.5.8.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

8.5.7.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 5-2: Water quality could be degraded such that beneficial use is reduced as a result of sediment generated for downstream transport.

The alternative alignment would eliminate one stream crossing (NCP-13), thereby reducing the potential impact on hydrology and water quality. Frac-outs could occur during directional drilling, which could increase sediment input into the stream.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 8-2 (refer to Section 8.5.8) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

8.5.8 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 8-1: The City should ensure that appropriate silt fences and/or cofferdams be installed upstream and downstream of the construction site and streamflow would be piped around the construction zone.

Mitigation 8-2: The City should ensure that measures be implemented to minimize the potential for bentonite seeps (frac-outs), including: requiring boring crews to strictly monitor drilling fluid pressures, retaining containment equipment on-site, monitoring waters downstream of the crossing

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-22 8.0 Hydrology and Water Quality sites to quickly identify any seep, immediately stopping work if a seep into a stream is detected, immediately implementing containment measures, which would be specified in the SWPPP, and adhering to agency reporting requirements. Containment equipment should include staked and floating silt barriers to isolate frac-out locations from flowing water.

Mitigation 8-3: The City should develop appropriate construction BMPs and pipeline features to prevent uncontrolled runoff down the pipeline as per the SWPPP. This would also help control soil erosion.

Mitigation 8-4: The City should ensure the use of erosion control BMPs for construction activities. The City would prepare an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan prior to construction to mitigate potential impacts to water quality.

8.5.9 Effects Found to be Not Significant Less than significant impacts are discussed on a site-specific basis in the sections above.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 8-23

9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

9.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This section addresses biological resources issues related to the proposed Project described in Chapter 2. The proposed Project area includes the watersheds associated with five distinct pipeline reaches (Liddell, Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, Majors, and NCP Reach). The entire 16-mile-long pipeline repair Project is located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. The pipeline crosses 12 defined watersheds and traverses lands held by both public and private entities (ENTRIX 2002a). Flora (plants) was surveyed by ENTRIX botanists on May 28-31 and June 7, 2002 on April 21-22, 2003 along the entire proposed Project area. Habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife was surveyed by ENTRIX biologists on June 13-14, 2002 along the entire proposed Project area.

The Project area is designated as sensitive habitat in the County’s General Plan, the Local Coastal Program, and the Sensitive Habitat Protection Ordinance. This habitat includes such features as “short-run” streams, forested slopes in the upper reaches and canyon portions of the watershed, coastal foothill terraces, and seasonal lagoons. The Project area is adjacent to Monterey Bay, which is included in the MBNMS. Monterey Bay is designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for fish species managed under the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan and the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan and is also designated as critical habitat for central coast coho salmon.

Biological data were collected from numerous sources, including relevant literature, maps of natural resources, and data on special-status species and sensitive habitat information obtained from the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).

9.2 Regulatory Considerations

9.2.1 Federal Regulations United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Endangered Species Act – Several federally-listed aquatic and terrestrial animals and plant species are present or could be present in the Project area over the Project implementation timeframe. The ESA requires that project proponents consult with NOAA Fisheries and USFWS to ensure that a proposed action would not result in the direct or indirect harm of a listed species or substantive degradation of habitat critical to their survival and recovery. Adverse impacts to a listed species, defined as “take,” are prohibited and include harm, injury, harassment or alteration of a listed species habitat in such a manner that it becomes less suitable. Incidental take authorization is required to engage in any activity that would result in the take of a listed species. Take authorization may be issued under either Section 7 or Section 10 of the ESA.

Section 7 consultation is required for projects where federal actions are required, such as other federal permits, funding, or agency management. Depending on the manner in which the proposed Project is configured, ESA consultation and permitting may occur under Section 7 or Section 10.

For example, the following actions could cause ESA consultation to occur under Section 7:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-1 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

• Modification of the diversion structures would likely require a Section 404 permit from the USACE under the CWA (a federal action)

• Transfer of the Coast Dairies Property to the Bureau of Land Management would likely require the preparation of a Biological Opinion from the USFWS (a federal action)

Without one of these actions, there is no mechanism for federal action, and the City of Santa Cruz would become the lead agency for the preparation of an HCP under Section 10 of the ESA.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act – The USFWS also administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC, Sec. 703, Supp. I, 1989). This Act prohibits killing, possessing, or trading in migratory birds, except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. Migratory birds are known to inhabit the Project area including swifts, flycatchers, vireos, and warblers. Under the Act, it is unlawful to “take, import, export, possess, buy, sell, purchase or barter any migratory bird.” “Take” is further defined to include “pursuing, hunting, shooting, poisoning, wounding, killing, capturing, trapping, or collecting” (50 CFS Section 10.12).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA Fisheries has jurisdiction over projects in which federally-listed marine or anadromous fish may be affected. Because of potential impacts to steelhead trout and coho salmon in the Project area, consultation with NOAA Fisheries would be required.

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Clean Water Act 404 Permit – The USACE administers compliance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Section 404 regulates activities that involve dredging and/ or filling of waters deemed as federal jurisdiction, or “Waters of the United States.” The two types of permits issued by the USACE under Section 404 are Nationwide Permits and Individual Permits. If impacts to wetlands are relatively small and a project falls into a specific category of uses already permitted, project proponents may apply for a Nationwide Permit which is easier to obtain than Individual Permits.

9.2.2 State Regulations California Department of Fish and Game

Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement – Section 1601 of the Fish Game Code requires a State or local governmental agency or public utility to notify the Department before it begins construction that would: 1) divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow or the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; 2) use materials from the streambed; or 3) result in the disposal or deposition of debris, wastes, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into any river, stream, or lake. CDFG reviews projects that may affect sensitive habitats (wetlands, riparian vegetation, etc.) and enforces the California ESA. Species listed by the state and USFWS as endangered are covered under the federal ESA. CDFG may request species protection measures for state-listed Species of Concern as part of any given 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement.

State Fish and Game Code – Birds of prey are protected in California under the State Fish and Game Code, (Section 3503.5, 1992). Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-2 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”

California Endangered Species Act – Under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the CDFG maintains a list of threatened and endangered species (CDFG Code 2070), a list of candidate species, which are species under review for addition to either the list of endangered species or the list of threatened species, and a list of species of special concern, which serve as watch lists. Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species could be present in the project area and whether the proposed projects would have a significant impact on such species. In addition, CDFG encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that could affect a candidate species. Currently, all state-listed endangered species are also federally listed under the jurisdiction of USFWS.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 – Although threatened and endangered species are protected by specific federal and state statutes, CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380(b), provide that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definition in the ESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is reviewing a project that could have a significant effect on, for example, a candidate species (such as the Pacific lamprey) that has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG.

California Department of Forestry

Timber Harvest Plan – If the total acreage of trees removed does not exceed three acres and the trees cut and removed would not be used for commercial purposes, then a Timber Harvest Plan (THP) from the Department of Forestry (CDF) would not be required for this Project. However, under the California Forest Practice Rules (2002), there are certain guidelines to be followed, such as no tree older than 200 years or greater than sixty inches in diameter at stump height for Sierra or Coastal Redwoods, and forty-eight inches in diameter at stump height for all other tree species shall be harvested unless diseased.

9.2.3 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County Riparian Corridor Protection Ordinance – All alignments located on properties abutting the riparian corridor shall be subject to review by the County Planning Director in accordance with County Code Section 16.30 Riparian Corridor Protection Ordinance. (See Section 8.2.3).

Santa Cruz County Sensitive Habitats Protection Ordinance – This ordinance was designed to minimize disturbance to sensitive habitats and to protect these areas for their genetic, scientific, and educational value. The ordinance specifically restricts the use of toxic substances in sensitive habitats, and requires a biotic review for any development or land disturbance that would occur in a sensitive habitat. Where appropriate upon review the County may issue a biotic permit for the proposed activity. Exemptions from the requirements of this ordinance include:

• Projects which are determined by the Planning Director to have received sufficient biotic review during the granting of a Riparian Exception for the project site; and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-3 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

• Projects for which an EIR is required, which includes biotic review through CEQA.

9.3 Existing Biological and Ecological Conditions

The NCS pipeline traverses a variety of habitats that include mature second growth redwood forest, coastal marine terraces, highly disturbed agricultural areas, and urban areas. The native flora of the Project area has been greatly modified over the years by human activities including grazing, clearing of scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland, the logging of redwoods and Douglas fir, lime and sand quarrying, tanbark oak collecting, row crop farming, and planting of exotic trees and shrubs (H. T. Harvey & Associates et al., 2004; Env. Sci. Assoc., 2001). Several special-status species or sensitive habitats occur or may occur along the pipeline route outside of urban areas. Special-status species with potential to occur in the Project area were identified based on information provided in the CNDDB for the USGS 7.5 minute Santa Cruz, Davenport, and Felton quadrangles, personal communication with the USFWS, the CNPS Electronic Inventory, existing reports, scientific literature, and professional knowledge and experience (Appendix C). The special-status plant species were identified based on information provided in the CNDDB for the USGS 7.5 minute Santa Cruz, Davenport, Felton, Año Nuevo, Big Basin, Castle Rock Ridge, and Franklin Point quadrangles (CDFG 2002a, 2004).

The species listed as threatened under the federal ESA that are known to inhabit the Project vicinity include steelhead trout, coho salmon (currently recommended to be listed as endangered), California red-legged frog, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, southern sea otter, and Santa Cruz tarplant. The federally-listed endangered species include the Ohlone tiger beetle, tidewater goby, brown pelican, robust spineflower, and San Francisco popcorn flower (state endangered only). In addition, species of special concern (e.g., southwestern pond turtle, Pacific lamprey, tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, black swift, and many plant species) potentially occur within the Project area. Below is a brief description of the terrestrial and aquatic resources that inhabit the Project area. Figures 9-1 through 9-3 illustrate the various vegetation communities and wildlife habitats associated with the Project area.

9.3.1 Terrestrial Ecology General and sensitive terrestrial biological resources that occur, or potentially occur, in the Project area are discussed in this section. The Project area encompasses a variety of habitats, which explains the large number and diversity of animals that occur, or have been observed, within the area. For instance, based on the surveys conducted for the Wilder Creek Wetland, over 340 vertebrate species were noted to occur in the region, including approximately 250 species of birds, 56 mammals, 19 reptiles, 13 amphibians, and four freshwater or anadromous fish (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993) (Appendix C). The Wilder Creek Wetland is located down gradient of the Project corridor along Highway 1. No comprehensive survey has been conducted, nor is there site-specific literature, to describe the terrestrial invertebrate fauna found in the entire Project area. However, several important species have been observed on Wilder Ranch State Park such as the monarch butterfly, San Francisco tree lupine moth, Dollof cave spider, and Empire cave pseudoscorpion (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993). Appendix C provides a list of species (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates and vascular plants) and their habitat types compiled for Wilder Ranch State Park by Schaub (1980) (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993). The following discussion of existing conditions within the Project area contains two components: 1) the general types of vegetative communities present, and 2) the types of wildlife that inhabit or are likely to inhabit those communities. Most of the terrestrial species information was extracted from the Coast Dairies Report (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001), the Wilder Ranch Wetland Restoration Report (1993), and the City of Santa

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-4 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Cruz Habitat Conservation Plan: Terrestrial Resources Technical Report (H. T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

9.3.1.1 Terrestrial Habitat Types

The Project area includes six vegetation communities and the biotic communities associated with each type: woodland and forest series, riparian forest, coastal scrub, grasslands and artificial ponds, agricultural and urban plant communities, and wetlands (Figures 6a-6c). Table 9-1 describes the dominant and sub-dominant vegetation types by pipeline reach. Wetland community classifications are discussed in more detail later in this section. The following habitat descriptions are based on observations of dominant plant species and their common associates and the classification guidelines set forth by CDFG (Holland 1986) and the List of Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (CDFG, 2002b). The equivalent wildlife habitat relationships within each of these communities are generally based on the CNPS (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf 1995) and a local Santa Cruz CNPS task force (McPherson et al. 1995).

Woodland and Forest Series

Redwood Forest is regionally abundant from southern San Mateo County through Santa Cruz County at elevations from sea level to 3,000 feet (Holland 1986). Secondary growth redwood forest occurs primarily on the lower slopes of drainages in Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Laguna Creek and Majors Creek. Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is the dominant tree, with Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and tan oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus) as associates in many areas. In moister areas, bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and red alder (Alnus rubra) may also be present. Characteristic understory species include redwood sorrel (Oxalis oregana), elk clover (Aralia californica), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), and starflower (Trientalis latifolia).

Mixed Conifer Forest occurs primarily on the north-facing slopes of drainages in the upper parts of Liddell and Laguna Creeks. Conifers in this plant community include Douglas fir, coast redwood, and knobcone pine (Pinus attenuata).

Mixed Evergreen Forest occurs from Santa Cruz County northward through the outer Coast Ranges into Oregon, usually away from the immediate coast at elevations from 200 to 4,000 feet (Holland 1986). In the Project area, mixed evergreen forest is found on moist, well-drained slopes, often above the redwood forest, in the Liddell, Laguna, and Majors Creek watersheds. Broad-leaved trees generally range from 30 to 90 feet in height. Taller conifers may be interspersed. Community dominants include coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Associated species include California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa). Coast redwood, tan bark oak, Douglas fir, and canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) may also occur within this community.

Central Coast Live Oak Woodland is distributed from Sonoma County to Santa Barbara County, generally below 3,000 feet (Holland 1986). This woodland type occurs as an upland community on the hilltop edges of conifer communities in the Project area. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the dominant tree intermixed with tan bark oak, California bay (Umbellularia californica), red elderberry (Sambucus racemosa var. racemosa), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Understory species include bedstraw (Galium aparine), western poison oak, California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and snowberry (Symphoricarpos mollis).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-5 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Red Alder Riparian Forest is distributed on streambanks along the immediate coast from northernmost San Luis Obispo County to Cape Mendocino in Humboldt County (Holland 1986). This forest type occurs in patches along Liddell, Laguna, and Majors Creek in the Project area. Red alder (Alnus rubra), reaching heights of up to 80 feet, dominates this forest. Stands near streams may be almost entirely composed of red alder, while sites removed from frequent stream disturbance often have dense shrub layers. In the Project area, this forest type occurs in the canyons and is often obscured from above by the upper canopy of coniferous trees. This type is not shown on the habitat map.

Associated Wildlife of Woodland and Forest Series

Common wildlife species in the woodland forest series include chestnut-backed chickadee (Parus rufescens), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), pygmy nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea), Allen’s hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin), great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipter cooperi), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), a variety of bats (Vespertilionidae sp.), moles (Talpidae sp.), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).

Riparian Forest

Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest is distributed from Monterey south to Santa Barbara (Holland 1986). In the Project area, this community if found in the smaller drainages along Highway 1 and at scattered locations along Liddell Creek, Laguna Creek, Majors Creek, Peasley Gulch, Wilder Creek and Moore Creek. Central Coast arroyo willow riparian forest occurs in scattered locations along most drainages along the Project route. This community forms a dense thicket of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), often associated with red alder (Alnus rubra), California blackberry, rush (Juncus spp.), and nettle (Urtica dioica).

Associated Wildlife of the Riparian Forest

The dense riparian forests adjacent to open grasslands provide an ecotone, or edge, for foraging animals such as the blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus), coyote (Canis latrans), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). The coniferous forest community provides moist habitats for a number of amphibians, including the rough-skinned newt (Taricha granulosa granulosa), ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzi), and California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) (CDPR 1980). The willow foliage provides roosting, feeding, breeding habitat to a variety of migratory birds including Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), black-headed grosbeak (Pheuticus melanocephalus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens) white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus), tree swallows (Tachicyneta bicolor), Wilson’s warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), and brown towhee (Pipilo fuscus).

Coastal Scrub

Coyote Brush Scrub is distributed from southern Oregon to San Mateo County and from Pacific Grove to Point Sur (Holland 1986). This scrub community occurs throughout the Project area along Highway 1 and on hillsides. Coyote brush scrub consists of a dense to moderately open shrub canopy with a sparse herbaceous understory. The dominant shrub in this community is coyote brush. Common shrub associates observed on the Property include western poison oak, blue blossom (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica). Associated species in the Project area include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and California figwort (Scrophularia californica ssp. californica).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-6 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Associated Wildlife of Coastal Scrub

Coastal scrub is less vegetatively productive than adjacent grassland or riparian habitats, but seems to support equivalent numbers of wildlife species (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1999). Species commonly occurring in the coastal scrub include California pocket mouse (Perognathus californicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), orange crowned warbler (Vermivora celata), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus skiltonianus), coast garter snake (Thanmophis elegans terrestris), and striped racer (Maticophis lateralis).

Grasslands and Artificial Ponds

Annual Grasslands are distributed throughout the valleys and foothills of most of California, except for the north coastal and desert regions, usually below 3,000 feet and range from Oregon to northern Baja California (Holland 1986). In the Project area, annual grassland comprises a dense to sparse cover of non-native grasses often associated with numerous annual and perennial herbaceous forbs and occasional native grasses. Species in this community include numerous common non-native grasses, including, Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), bromes (Bromus hordeaceus, B. diandrus, and B. madritensis ssp. rubens), rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), wild oat (Avena barbata), and rattlesnake grasses (Briza major and B. minor). Associated forbs include a mixture of native and non- native species, including Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), tarweed (Madia sp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.), and filaree (Erodium botrys, E. cicutarium). A rush meadow community occurs in patches along the existing pipeline on the marine terraces east of Majors Creek. This community occurs within annual grassland.

Purple Needlegrass is found in a few small stands intermingled with annual grassland in the Project area in the Laguna Creek and Majors Creek watersheds and on the slopes just west of the City of Santa Cruz in the Moore Creek Preserve. Native grasses include purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), and California brome (Bromus carinatus). Associated forbs include California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and checkerbloom (Sidalcea malvaeflora).

Freshwater Ponds are present in the Project area along Highway 1. These artificial ponds support primarily California bulrush (Scirpus californicus) and cattail (Typha latifolia).

Associated Wildlife of Grassland and Artificial Ponds

Grassland habitat typically attracts seed eaters as well as insect eaters. Common wildlife species utilizing grassland and artificial pond habitat include California quail (Callipepla californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta), scrub jays (Aphelocoma caerulescens), barn swallows (Hirundo rustica), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottus), California vole (Microtus californicus), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), broad-footed mole (Scapanus latimanus), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), southern alligator lizard (Gerrhonotus multicarinatus), and Pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus). Small rodents attract raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi).

Disturbed Areas

Urban, Industrial, and Agriculture areas delineated as urban include residential housing, ornamental trees (including native species planted in rural areas), landscaping plants, and rural

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-7 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources vegetable gardens. This category also includes some roads in non-urban parts of the Project area. Because the NCS parallels Highway 1 for approximately 21,500 feet, the roadway occupies a considerable part of the Project area. Disturbed areas are mostly bare of vegetation due to activities such as sand mining and row crop agriculture. Lands designated as agricultural include the farm fields on the lower marine terraces along Highway 1, as well as the horse pasture at Wilder Ranch.

Associated Wildlife of Disturbed Areas

Developed habitats can support certain wildlife species adapted to unique nesting and foraging opportunities found there, but wildlife abundance and diversity is generally low in this habitat. Striped skunks, raccoons, and Virginia opossums (Didelphis virginiana) occur regularly in urban habitats. Bird species adapted to the urban landscape include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and non-native European starling (Sturna vulgaris), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock dove (Columba livia). Eucalyptus groves, although generally poor wildlife habitat, provide roosting sites for wintering monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

Wetlands

Specific wetland types identified in the Project area include riverine (rivers, creeks, and streams), palustrine (shallow ponds, marshes, swamps, sloughs), and lacustrine (lakes and deep ponds). Specific wetland and deepwater classes within the Project area are described below using the Cowardin classification system.

Riverine Upper Perennial habitat within the Project area includes the open and flowing water of East Branch of Liddell, Yellow Bank, Y, Laguna, and Majors creeks. Additional small areas of riverine upper perennial habitat occur where the Project route crosses other perennial streams along Highway 1. This habitat consists of the permanently flooded rock-, cobble-, or sand-bottom channel with little to no in-stream vegetation. Occasional sandbars form within and at the channel edge and typically support willows and emergent (grasses and herbs) vegetation. These portions of the perennial streams in the Project area would be classified as wetland in the Cowardin classification system. Channel portions that lie at a depth of 2 meters below low water would be considered deepwater. No deep-water habitats occur in the immediate vicinity of the Project area. The channels of these creeks below the ordinary high water mark would likely be considered to be other waters of the United States by the USACE, and would be subject to USACE jurisdiction.

Palustrine Emergent habitat includes grassland meadows and freshwater seeps. This habitat type is found at a few scattered locations in the Project area (Figures 6a-6c). Soils generally remain saturated year-round or on a seasonal basis. Vegetation is dominated by grasses, sedges, rushes, and perennial herbs. These communities are typically considered wetlands under the Cowardin classification system, but may be classified as either non-jurisdictional or jurisdictional wetlands by the USACE, depending on site-specific vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions.

Palustrine Forests are found along most of the major creeks and their tributaries in the Project area. In the Project area, these are primarily red alder riparian forest and Central Coast arroyo willow riparian forest. Substrate under the palustrine forest community varies from rock, gravel, sand, clays, loams, and mud. Palustrine forests are classified as wetlands based on the Cowardin classification system. These areas may be classified as either non-jurisdictional or jurisdictional wetlands or as jurisdictional other waters of the United States by the USACE, depending on site-specific vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-8 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Palustrine Scrub Shrub is found in the Project area along the lower reaches of Laguna Creek, as well as in several drainages along Highway 1. This habitat is regularly inundated by normal high- water or flood flows. In the Project area, habitat is primarily represented by Central Coast arroyo willow riparian vegetation and often intergrades with riparian (palustrine forest) communities. Central Coast arroyo willow riparian scrub vegetation may be classified as either non-jurisdictional or jurisdictional wetlands or as jurisdictional other waters of the United States by the USACE, depending on site-specific vegetation, soils, and hydrologic conditions.

Associated Wildlife of Wetlands

Fresh emergent wetland areas offer water, food and cover for a variety of species including meadow voles, raccoons (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), common garter snake (Thamnophis couchixxi), western toad (Bufo boreus), tree frog (Hylla regilla), Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum), and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii).

9.3.2 Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Plant and Terrestrial Species Special-status species or sensitive habitats are potentially present in the Project area (Appendix C). Of the special-status plant species, nine are federally protected as endangered or threatened, one is proposed for federal protection as threatened, and two others are state species of concern. Of the terrestrial species, seven special-status birds and two protected invertebrate species are known to occur or could occur in the Project area. These species and their habitats are described below.

9.3.2.1 Plant species

Marsh sandwort (Arenaria paludicola) [endangered] occurs in freshwater conditions in bogs, fens, marshes and swamps.

Ben Lomond spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. hartwegiana) [endangered] occurs in lower montane coniferous forest and maritime ponderosa pine sandhills.

Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens) [threatened] occurs in sandy soil in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and in valley and foothill grassland.

Scott’s Valley spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. hartwegii) [endangered] occurs in sandy soil and in mudstone and sandstone outcrops in meadows and in valley and foothill grassland.

Robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta) [endangered] occurs in sandy or gravelly openings on terraces and bluffs in cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, and coastal scrub. Known populations within the Project area occur north of Wilder Ranch State Park within the Laguna Creek watershed. No survey records are available for much of the Laguna Creek watershed. Limited areas of sandy soils occur within remnant coastal terrace prairie and open coastal scrub habitats along the existing pipeline alignment (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

Santa Cruz cypress (Cupressus abramsiana) [endangered] occurs on sandstone or granitic soils in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral, and lower montane coniferous forest. Habitat for this species is present in Project area, but the Project area is below the elevation range for this species.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-9 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Santa Cruz wallflower (Erysimum teretifolium) [endangered] occurs on inland and marine sands in chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest.

Sand gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria) [endangered] occurs in coastal dunes, coastal scrub, maritime chaparral, and cismontane woodland, particularly in bare, wind-sheltered areas within the dune complex in Monterey County south of the Project area.

Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) [proposed threatened] occurs in sandy-clay soil in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and in valley and foothill grassland. One population occurs within City limits at Arana Gulch just north of the yacht harbor within the Arana Gulch Greenbelt area. The City is apparently preparing a long-term Arana Gulch Master Plan, and recently certified an EIR for a proposed bike path through the greenbelt. A 65-acre parcel at Arana Gulch was designated as critical habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant in October 2002. Suitable habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant exists in the Project area but no current survey records exist in this area (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

Dudley’s lousewort (Pedicularis dudleyi) [state species of concern] occurs in deep shade in maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, North Coast coniferous forest, and in valley and foothill grassland.

White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora) [endangered] occurs in valley and foothill grassland, often in serpentine soils. No serpentine soils are present in the Project area.

San Francisco popcorn-flower (Plagiobothrys diffusus) [state species of concern] occurs on grassy slopes with marine influence in coastal prairie and in valley and foothill grassland. A large population, consisting of two subunits and totaling approximately 5,000 individuals in 2000 (CNDDB 2003), is located within the Moore Creek Preserve near the end of Meder Road and between Wilder and Moore creeks (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

In addition, a sedge, that may be bristly sedge (Carex comosa), was observed near the pipeline crossing on Liddell Creek. This sedge was growing in the shade and was not flowering at the time of the survey. No other special-status species were observed during the botanical surveys along the existing pipeline routes. However, California bottlebrush grass (Elymus californicus), a CNPS List 4 plant, was found at several locations in the Project area. This species was found along the Liddell, Laguna, and Majors reaches.

9.3.2.2 Terrestrial Species

Birds

Tricolored Blackbird is classified as a California species of special concern, the tricolored blackbird is common locally throughout the Central Valley and in coastal areas from Sonoma County south. The tricolored blackbird is a summer resident in northeastern California, regularly occurring only at Tule Lake, but has been found to breed as far south as Honey Lake in some years. During winter, the tricolored blackbird becomes more widespread along the central coast and San Francisco Bay area (Grinnell and Miller 1944; McCaskie et al. 1979; Garrett and Dunn 1981). In California, the tricolored blackbird numbers appear to be declining (De Haven et al. 1975).

The tricolored blackbird breeds near freshwater, preferring emergent wetland habitat with tall, dense cattails or tules, but would also utilize thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, and tall herbs. The breeding season of the tricolored blackbird is from mid-April to late July (Orians 1960). The tricolored blackbird forages in croplands, grassy fields, flooded land, and along edges of ponds (Grinnell and Miller 1944; McCaskie et al. 1979; Garrett and Dunn 1981). The tricolored blackbird is

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-10 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources known to occur at Scotts Marsh Creek on the Coast Dairies Property north of the Project area and potentially breeds at Antonelli’s Pond on Moore Creek downstream of the NCP Reach.

Cooper’s Hawk is classified as a California species of special concern, is a permanent-breeding resident throughout most of the wooded areas of California, ranging from sea level to above 9,000 feet (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous or other forested habitats near water are used by the Cooper’s hawk most frequently. Cooper’s hawks nest in deciduous trees in crotches or cavities that are usually 20-50 feet above the ground. They have also been found to nest in conifers on horizontal branches or in the main crotch. Nests are generally placed in second growth coniferous stands or in the deciduous riparian areas nearest streams. Breeding occurs from March through August with the peak activity taking place from May through July. The Cooper’s hawk utilizes broken woodland and habitat edges for hunting. The Cooper’s hawk diet consists of small birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Local birdwatchers, ornithologists and raptor enthusiasts have recognized that large number of raptors can be regularly seen during the winter months on the North Coast (Scoping Meeting Minutes, 2001 as cited in the Coast Dairies Report) (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). A total of 405 individual observations of 10 species of raptors including the Cooper’s hawk were observed during seven surveys conducted on the Coast Dairies Property from December 5, 2000 to January 26, 2001 (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). Cooper’s hawk is also reported to nest in the vicinity of Moore Creek Preserve and Arroyo Seco Creek (Biotic Resource Group 2002). This species could be present at numerous locations throughout the Project area.

Marbled Murrelet was listed as threatened under the ESA on September 15, 1992 (Federal Register 45328) and by the state of California as endangered. Critical habitat for the species was designated in 1996, and a final recovery plan was issued in 1997 (USFWS 1997). Historically, the marbled murrelet occurred in California from Monterey County to the Oregon border, living and foraging along the near shore coastline and nesting in the old-growth coastal coniferous forests that formed a continuous band along the western slope of the Coastal Range. Only approximately 3.5 percent of this nesting habitat currently remains in California, drastically reducing the marbled murrelet population. Historically, the California breeding population of the marbled murrelet was estimated at 60,000 individuals; however, their current breeding population is estimated to be 1,650 to 2,000 individuals (Larsen 1994).

The present population of the marbled murrelet in California is divided between three isolated areas: northern Santa Cruz and southern San Mateo counties, south central Humboldt County, and northern Humboldt and Del Norte counties to the Oregon border. These areas are sufficiently isolated from one another to preclude genetic exchange and make recolonization unlikely should one of the populations become extirpated (Larsen 1994).

The marbled murrelet is dependent on two different habitats for its continued survival in California, the ocean where the marbled murrelet feeds exclusively and old-growth conifer forests situated near the ocean for nesting (Sealy 1972). In addition, concentrations of marbled murrelets offshore are almost always adjacent to older forests on shore (Nelson 1997; Ralph et al. 1990). Old-growth conifer forests utilized for nesting by the marbled murrelet are generally characterized by large trees (> 32 inches diameter at breast height [dbh]), multistoried stand, and a moderate to high canopy closure. Trees used for nesting must have large branches or deformities that provide a suitable nesting platform (Binford et al. 1975; Carter and Sealy 1987; Hamer and Cummins 1990 and 1991; Singer et al. 1991 and 1992; Nelson 1997). In surveys of mature and second-growth forests in California, marbled murrelets were only found in those forests where there was old-growth nearby, or where residual older trees remained within the second growth forests. Marbled murrelets were absent from 80 percent of the second-growth forests surveyed (Ralph et al. 1990).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-11 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Marbled murrelets nest from mid-April to late September, with only one egg being produced per nest (Carter and Sealy 1987). Incubation lasts approximately 30 days, with fledging occurring about 28 days later (Hirsch et al. 1981; Simons 1980). Male and female marbled murrelets both incubate the egg in alternating 24-hour shifts (Simons 1980; Singer et al. 1991). Flights by adults from ocean feeding areas to inland nest sites most often occur at dusk and dawn (Hamer and Cummins 1991). Marbled murrelets do not reach sexual maturity until their second year. Not all adults may nest every year (Nelson 1997).

Marbled murrelets are confirmed to nest in Santa Cruz County, particularly in the watersheds of Waddell and Scott creeks, and there is evidence of possible nesting at Cascade Creek, Fall Creek, and at the Rincon Gorge of the San Lorenzo River, which lie outside of the Project area. However, marbled murrelets have been detected in the past 10 years over the upper watershed of Majors Creek (Suddjian, pers. comm., 2004). In addition, within the Project area, there is a winter record of one or more murrelets flying inland at Smith Grade Road, between Laguna and Majors creeks, and detections by David Suddjian in July 2002 of two birds circling over Majors Creek at Smith Grade Road. Laguna and Majors creeks have not received much survey attention, so these areas may provide suitable nesting habitat for the marbled murrelets (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004). Critical habitat for the species in the Santa Cruz Mountains is limited to state parks, including Henry Cowell and Wilder Ranch State parks. The closest confirmed nesting site for marbled murrelets is in Henry Cowell State Park and along the Fall Creek Trail (Suddjian, pers. comm., 2004).

Burrowing Owl is classified as a California species of special concern, the burrowing owl was formerly a common permanent resident throughout much of California. However, a decline that became noticeable in the 1940’s has continued through to the present time (Grinnell and Miller 1944). The burrowing owl is a year long resident of open, dry grassland and desert habitats often associated with burrowing animals. They have also been found to inhabit grass, forb, and shrub stages of pinyon and ponderosa pine habitats. Burrowing owls commonly perch on fence posts or on top of mounds outside their burrows. Burrowing owls are active both day and night, with a lessening in activity at the peak of the day. Burrowing owls are opportunistic feeders, with large arthropods comprising a majority of their diet. Small mammals, reptiles, birds, and carrion are also important components of the burrowing owl’s diet. The nesting season of the burrowing owl occurs from March through August, with a peak in breeding occurring from April to May. Burrowing owls nest in burrows in the ground, often utilizing old ground squirrel or other small mammal nests. However, burrowing owls may dig their own nests in areas of soft soil. Pipes, culverts, and nest boxes are also used in areas where burrows are scarce. Rare species of owls use the Wilder uplands. Relatively rare, burrowing owls have been sighted at Wilder Ranch (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993).

Black Swift is classified as a California species of special concern, the black swift breeds locally in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range, the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mts., and in coastal bluffs and mountains from San Mateo County south probably to San Luis Obispo County. Black swift nests can be found in moist crevices or caves on sea cliffs above the surf, or on cliffs behind, or adjacent to, waterfalls in deep canyons. Foraging occurs widely within many different habitats. The black swift does not winter in California (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Remsen 1978; McCaskie et al. 1979; Garrett and Dunn 1981). The breeding season of the black swift occurs from early June to late August. Black swifts lay one egg per year (Harrison 1978), with incubation lasting 24 to 27 days and fledging occurring at approximately 45 days (Hunter and Baldwin 1962).

One to six black swifts are regularly present around Wilder Beach between May and August. No nests have been observed on Wilder Ranch State Park, but suitable habitat along the marine cliffs of Wilder Beach is present, so the swifts could potentially nest there in some years. Only 17 to 21 nesting black

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-12 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources swift pairs are known in the county (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993). Cliffs present in lower Majors Creek Canyon are not known to be nesting sites for this species.

White-tailed Kite is classified as a California species of special concern and is fully protected in California (Waian and Stendell 1970). The white-tailed kite is a common to uncommon yearlong resident throughout much of the coastal and valley lowlands, except the southeast deserts, of California. It is common in the Central Valley and along the entire California coast (Dunk 1995). They require relatively open habitat for foraging and trees (isolated or within stands) for nesting and roosting. They use substantial groves of dense, broad-leafed deciduous trees for nesting and roosting. They are rarely found away from agricultural areas. White-tailed kites are opportunistic feeders preying mostly on voles and other small, diurnal mammals. They occasionally consume birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians (Thompson 1975).

White-tailed kites breed in lowland grasslands, agriculture, wetlands, oak-woodland and savannah habitats, and riparian areas associated with open areas. Kites do not seem to associate with particular plant species, but are more tied to prey abundance and vegetation structure (Dunk 1995). Nest building typically occurs from January through August (Dunk 1995). Egg laying begins in February and probably peaks in March and April, while peak fledging probably occurs in May and June with most fledging complete by October (Erichsen 1995). As a whole, little is known about the breeding requirements of white-tailed kites, and long-term data on population numbers on a regional scale is equally lacking.

The white-tailed kite is a fairly common resident along the north coast of Santa Cruz County to the vicinity of Scott Creek and into the Pajaro River Valley. There are numerous breeding records from the coastal riparian corridors, especially in forested areas on the slopes above or near the grasslands that occupy the coastal terraces. There is evidence they nest regularly in the Project area in the watersheds of Widler Creek and tributaries, Majors, Baldwin, Laguna, Yellow Bank, and San Vicente creeks (Suddjian, pers. comm., 2004).

American Peregrine Falcon was removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species on August 25, 1999 but is listed as endangered by the State of California. Peregrine falcons are medium-sized raptors with a wingspan exceeding three feet (CDFG 2000). The adults have slate blue-gray wings and backs barred with black, white faces with a black stripe on each cheek, and large dark eyes. Peregrine falcons occur in most of California, except desert habitat, during migrations and in the winter. The California breeding range includes the Channel Islands, coast of southern and central California, inland north coastal mountains, Klamath and Cascade ranges, the Sierra Nevada. Currently, there may be 500 to 600 peregrine falcon pairs in the western United States (USFWS 1999).

Active nesting sites are known to occur along the coast north of Santa Barbara, in the Sierra Nevada, and in other mountains of northern California. In winter, the falcons are found more inland throughout the Central Valley area (CDFG 1983). Migrants occur along the coast and in the western Sierra Nevada in spring and fall. Peregrine falcons prefer to nest on ledges of large cliff faces, but some pairs are known to nest on city buildings and bridges. Nesting and wintering habitats are varied and include wetlands, woodlands, other forested habitats, cities, agricultural areas, and coastal habitats.

Peregrine falcons generally reach breeding maturity at two to three years of age. Pairs are usually on their breeding grounds and territories established by March. An average clutch of four eggs is laid in the spring; hatching about a month later (USFWS 1999). The young stay in the nest for six to seven

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-13 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources weeks and are not self-sufficient for several months. Peregrine falcons feed primarily on other birds caught in flight, such as songbirds, shorebirds, and ducks.

Peregrine falcons are known to occur in the Project area. In 1997, a CDFG-contracted statewide breeding survey was conducted by the University of California, Santa Cruz, to assess breeding population size and locations, and to collect information on breeding success. From the survey, of the 150 known and suspected nesting areas checked, at least 129 of those sites had at least one adult peregrine present (occupied territory), and at least 111 territories had two courting adults present (active territory) (CDFG 2000). Within the Project area, the Majors Creek watershed currently supports an active nesting site for the species (Suddjian, pers. comm., 2005). It is not known if the other North Coast stream watersheds support potential nesting habitat.

Invertebrates

Ohlone Tiger Beetle was listed as endangered under the ESA on October 3, 2001 (Federal Register 50340). Specimens of this species were first collected northwest of the City of Santa Cruz, California, in 1987, and were first described in 1993 (Freitag et al. 1993). Although the historic range of the Ohlone tiger beetle cannot be precisely accessed due to the species recent discovery; historically, potentially suitable habitat may have been present from southwestern San Mateo County to northwestern Monterey County, California (Freitag et al. 1993). However, there is no evidence or data that indicates this species occurred beyond the present known occupied areas of Santa Cruz County. The extent of potentially suitable habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle is currently estimated at approximately 200 to 300 acres in Santa Cruz County, California (Freitag et al. 1993).

The Ohlone tiger beetle inhabits coastal terrace prairies, which are often characterized by the presence of California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra), Gairdner’s yampa (Perideridia gairdenera), and/ or Kellogg’s yampa (Perideridia kelloggii) (Freitag et al. 1993). Ohlone tiger beetle habitat is associated with either Watsonville loam or Bonnydoon soil types in Santa Cruz County, a shallow, pale, poorly drained clay or sandy clay soil that bakes to a hard crust by summer (Freitag et al. 1993). Adult Ohlone tiger beetles are typically found on level or nearly level slopes along trails (e.g., footpaths, dirt roads, and bicycle paths) that are adjacent to or near remnant patches of native grassland of coastal terraces. However, adults will also utilize barren areas within low or sparse vegetation of the grassland. The Ohlone tiger beetle requires these openings within the coastal terrace prairies for construction of larval burrows, thermoregulation, and foraging. Open areas within the coastal prairie habitat are also utilized for the oviposition by females and subsequent larval development. When disturbed, adults will take cover within more densely vegetated areas (Freitag et al. 1993). The Ohlone tiger beetle is active from late January to early April (Freitag et al. 1993).

Tiger beetles are day-active, predatory insects that prey on small arthropods. Tiger beetle larvae are also predatory. They live in small vertical or slanting burrows from which they lunge and seize passing invertebrate prey (Pearson 1988). When a prey item passes near a burrow, the larva grasps the prey with its strong mandibles and pulls it into the burrow, and once inside the burrow, the larva will feed on the captured prey (Pearson 1988).

Tiger beetle larvae undergo three larval development stages, which can take one to four years (Pearson 1988). After mating, the tiger beetle female excavates a hole in the soil in which she oviposits the egg (Pearson 1988; Freitag et al. 1993). Once the larva emerges from the egg and hardens, the larva will enlarge the chamber that contained the egg into a burrow. Before the transformation from larva to adult, the third instar larva will plug the burrow entrance and dig a

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-14 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources chamber. Following pupation, the adult tiger beetle will dig out of the chamber and emerge (Pearson 1988).

Although outside of the Project area, Ohlone tiger beetles have been observed at Gray Whale and Wilder Ranch State Park properties in 1995 (David Suddjian), 1997 (Randall Morgan and Grey Hayes), 1999 (Grey Hayes) and 2001 (Tim Hyland and Colleen Sculley) (Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2001). In 2002, Tim Hyland conducted a survey for the presence of Ohlone tiger beetles at the two known locations along Empire Grade Road on the Gray Whale acquisition of Wilder Ranch State Park (Hyland 2002). Ohlone tiger beetles are reported to exist in the Moore Creek Preserve in the immediate vicinity of the existing alignment (Biotic Resources Group 2002). Although, not documented, Ohlone tiger beetles have been sighted near the lower portion of Majors Reach and its alternative. To date, no surveys have been conducted in this area for the presence of Ohlone tiger beetles. At this time, the Ohlone tiger beetle appears to be restricted to coastal terrace situations, at low to mid-elevations (less than 1,200 feet), located between the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Pacific Ocean (H.T. Harvey & Associates et al. 2004).

Smith’s Blue Butterfly was listed as endangered under the ESA on June 1, 1976 (Federal Register 22044). Smith’s blue butterfly historically occurred along the coast from Monterey Bay south through Big Sur to near Point Gorda, occurring in scattered populations in association with coastal dune, coastal scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats. Development and the invasion of non-native plant species threaten important habitat for the Smith’s blue butterfly. Degradation of the coastal scrub and coastal dune ecosystems is being caused by increasing automobile and foot traffic along the coast. Many non-native plants, including European beach grass and ice plant, have served to stabilize the formerly very active dune systems of the California coast. Many native plants, including the Smith’s blue butterfly host, are adapted to conditions of active sand and require disruption in order to spread successfully (Arnold 1983).

The Smith’s blue butterfly spends its entire life in association with two buckwheat plants in the genus Eriogonum, seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium) and coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium). The seacliff buckwheat and coast buckwheat provide food for the larvae and adult Smith’s blue butterfly use the same host plants for consumption, resting, sunning, mate location, and copulation. The reproduction cycle of the Smith’s blue butterfly is closely linked with the flowering period of the buckwheat hosts, occurring from mid-June to early September. Adults live for approximately one week, with emergences being staggered due to the variations in the flowering time of host plants. Upon emergence, the adults mate and lay eggs on the flowers of the plant. The eggs hatch within four to eight days and the larvae begin to feed on the flowers of the buckwheat. After several weeks of feeding and development, the larvae begin their ten-month period of transformation, molting to their pupal stage. The following year the new adults emerge as the Eriogonum again flower.

From the reconnaissance levels surveys conducted by ENTRIX in 2002, biologists observed the presence of the coast buckwheat approximately half way between distance markers 1,000 and 2,000 feet on the NCP Reach. This could potentially attract Smith’s blue butterfly. Based on the available data, no Smith’s blue butterflies have been observed in the Project area.

9.3.3 Aquatic Biology The Project area contains coastal watersheds within which the City has a surface water diversion (i.e., Liddell, Reggiardo, Laguna, and Majors creeks) and/or streams over which the City’s North Coast Pipeline crosses. Throughout the Project area the pipeline traverses at least nine major drainages, including from west to east, East Fork of Liddell Creek, Yellow Bank Creek, Laguna Creek, Majors

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-15 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Creek, Baldwin Creek, Lombardi Creek, Peasley Gulch, Wilder Creek, Moore Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, Pogonip Creek, and several other unnamed drainages. A number of aquatic resources are located within the Project area, including invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and fish resources within the streams. Figures 9-4 through 9-6 illustrate the stream crossings associated with the Project area. The streams of Santa Cruz County have, in addition to steelhead, a small complement of coastal, salt-tolerant freshwater native fish (Harvey & Stanley Associates 1982). To date, the only comprehensive survey on aquatic invertebrates was conducted on the lower reaches of Wilder Creek during 1991 and 1992 (Moss Landing Marine Laboratories 1993). The data indicated that the greatest diversity and abundance of invertebrates was at a site located approximately one half-mile north of Highway 1. Invertebrates are key prey for special-status species like steelhead. Data on non-native fishes in the Project area was not found.

9.3.3.1 Threatened, Endangered, and Special-Status Species

Many of the coldwater streams within the Project area provide occupied or potential habitat for several species that are listed under the federal ESA or are State species of special concern that potentially may be affected by, or their habitat influenced by, proposed actions conducted by the City. These species include:

• Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (threatened)

• Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) (endangered)

• Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) (endangered)

• Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) (species of special concern)

• California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) (threatened)

• Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorta pallida) (species of special concern)

Various stream and fisheries surveys have been conducted in the North Coast streams. These stream surveys have been conducted as the need arose during the past two decades to evaluate stream habitat conditions and the abundance of steelhead and California red-legged frogs within the Project area (e.g., ENTRIX 1997, 2002b, 2004, 2004a; Kawamoto Environmental Services [KES] 2001; Environmental Science Associates [Env. Sci. Assoc.] 2001, and H.T. Harvey and Associates [H.T. Harvey] 2003). Thus, the majority of the site-specific information is available for these two species, although surveys for other species have occurred and are summarized in this section.

The available data adequately describes the general aquatic habitat, population and streamflow conditions in the Project area. However, population data for steelhead, California red-legged frog, tidewater goby, Pacific lamprey and southwestern pond turtle is not available.

Fish Resources

The federally–listed steelhead trout (threatened) are known to occur in the accessible portions of some of the coastal streams. Coho salmon (endangered) may have occurred less frequently than steelhead. The tidewater goby (endangered) is known to occur in some of the lagoon habitats downstream of the Project area. Currently, the Pacific lamprey inhabits areas of the San Lorenzo

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-16 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

River Watershed, but no data have been located that indicate lamprey are present in any of the North Coast streams.

Steelhead Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) inhabiting some of the nine major drainages within the project area are part of the Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Steelhead inhabiting this ESU are listed as threatened under the federal ESA (NOAA Fisheries 1997). The Central California ESU consists entirely of winter-run steelhead and extends from the Russian River south to Soquel Creek in the southern end of Santa Cruz County. The project area is located in the southern range of the Central California Coast ESU (Busby et al. 1996). No critical habitat has been designated for the Central California Coast ESU. Recovery planning is underway, but the plan has not been completed.

Life History and Habitat Requirements Steelhead life history is quite diverse and adaptive, providing the necessary flexibility to survive varied environmental conditions naturally occurring throughout their range and within their natal watershed. This diversity and adaptivity also assists steelhead survival in stream systems affected by water use. In general, steelhead grow and mature in the ocean and spawn in freshwater. In central California, adult steelhead enter coastal streams during the wet season in association with increased runoff. The majority of steelhead enter freshwater from January through March or April, and spawn relatively soon after entering freshwater. Spawning occurs in the tail-end of pools, or runs where the female buries her eggs in pockets (or redds) excavated in a gravel-cobble substrate (Shapovalov and Taft 1954). Incubation can take from a few weeks to several months, depending upon temperature. The embryos remain within the gravel until they are fully developed and ready to begin feeding. Upon emergence from the gravel, the young steelhead (or fry) typically disperse to the stream margins in close vicinity of the redd. As the fish grow, they move to areas with more suitable feeding and hiding conditions (e.g., heads of pools, pocket water, etc.). Depending upon the size attained by the fall following emergence, the juveniles aggregate in pools and begin the smolting process that prepares them for life in the ocean (known as smoltification). Juvenile steelhead can spend from 1 to 3 years in freshwater before smolting. Juvenile steelhead that migrate to the ocean undergo physiological changes in the process of smoltification that allow them to adapt to seawater. Steelhead begin the process of smoltification, most commonly at a size of 150 to 200 mm (6 to 8 inches), and migrate downstream to the ocean as early as the fall, but most commonly in the spring (March-May). Steelhead may spend from 1 to 2 years in the ocean before reaching maturity and returning to their natal stream to spawn (Shapovalov and Taft 1954).

Steelhead are unusual among the Pacific salmonids in that they are capable of spawning more than once, as they do not necessarily die after spawning. After spawning, some of these fish, called kelts, after holding for a short period of time in freshwater return to the ocean (Barnhart 1986). Steelhead are also unusual in that they have several life history strategies. Young steelhead produced from common parents have the capability of following distinctly different forms. Some may remain in freshwater even when the ocean is readily available. These fish can reach sexual maturity and spawn without ever entering the ocean. Furthermore, the progeny of these “resident” spawning fish can produce young that assume an anadromous life history and leave the freshwater environs as juveniles to grow and mature in the ocean before returning to spawn. This life history strategy provides greater potential for population persistence, especially in areas with episodic periods of prolonged drought that can prevent fish from entering or leaving the stream for several generations (Titus et al. In prep.).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-17 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Steelhead Occurrence in the Project Area Steelhead are known to inhabit Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and Wilder creeks (ENTRIX 2002b, 2004; KES 2001) and are likely to be able to migrate past barriers in the lower reaches of Baldwin Creek (KES 2001). The majority of the studies cited on the North Coast streams document the presence of juvenile steelhead, but do not provide any quantitative measure of population size or trends. The North Coast watersheds drain from the steep sides of the coastal range directly into the Pacific Ocean. As such, they typically flow through a steep, canyon component, a less steep portion across the coastal prairie plain, and then into a lagoon formed seasonally by a barrier beach. For steelhead to successfully complete their lifecycle in these small streams, the barrier beach must first be breached so that returning adults can access these systems. In addition, natural barriers exist in most of the North Coast streams that restrict upstream migration to the lower mile or so of the stream system (e.g., Liddell, Laguna, and Majors creeks).

The timing and frequency of lagoon opening is relevant to understanding coastal steelhead, coho and lamprey populations because this phenomenon determines when these anadromous species can enter or exit the freshwater environment. The rapid outflow from a breaching lagoon provides adequate attraction and passage flow for spawning adults to enter the stream as well as stimulating out migration from the lagoon or anadromous reach of the stream. The magnitude of the streamflow associated with and immediately following lagoon breaching is also of importance to in migrating and out migrating steelhead because this streamflow is the primary determinant of instream passage conditions.

Steelhead use of these streams is limited by the overall amount of habitat they provide. The North Coast streams are small streams that flow from steep coastal mountains into a coastal lagoon and ocean. As such, the majority of the stream is typically in steep canyons which create numerous natural passage barriers (e.g. boulder cascade, log jams). Thus, the linear amount of habitat available to steelhead in Liddell (mainstem), Laguna, and Majors creeks combined is 3.4 miles, which is substantially a small amount.

In addition to the short lengths of stream accessible to steelhead in the North Coast streams, the amount of spawning gravel in these streams is naturally low thus limiting the amount of spawning habitat. Sedimentation was observed to be a problem in the non-anadromous reaches of Majors Creek (ENTRIX 2002b), although this could further constrain the suitability of spawning and rearing habitats in the anadromous reach if the sand migrates downstream. Sedimentation is also a constraint in the mainstem of Liddell Creek which is accessible to steelhead (ENTRIX 2004). Suitable flow must also be maintained during the spawning and incubation phase so that steelhead fry can successfully emerge from the gravel.

Suitable rearing habitat exists inthe coastal streams, however migration barriers both natural and man- made limit access to otherwise suitable rearing habitat in Laguna, Liddell, Majors, Wilder, Yellow Bank and Baldwin creeks. High canopy cover in the canyon-portions of the anadromous reaches maintain suitable water temperatures. Instream cover is typically not a problem in these canyons and dissolved oxygen is maintained by the turbulence created by flow through the steeper gradient channel. In Liddell, Laguna, and Majors creeks, flow can constrain suitable habitat during the dry summer and fall rearing seasons, however suitable rearing conditions exist under current conditions (ENTRIX 2004).

Liddell Reach Liddell Creek drains a coastal watershed of 4 square miles and consists of three distinct forks (or branches): the Main, East, and West branches. Liddell Creek is known to support steelhead (ENTRIX 2004; Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). All three branches of Liddell Creek were surveyed by D. Alley and J.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-18 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Smith in September of 1981, June of 1982, and June of 1983 (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). Additional surveys have been conducted recently, in 2001 and 2003, to determine the extent of potential habitat for steelhead and the barriers to adult upstream migration (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001; ENTRIX 2004). In addition, the 2003 ENTRIX study compared low flow (October) rearing habitat conditions in the anadromous reaches of Liddell, Laguna, and Majors creeks under conditions when the City’s diversions on each tributary were, and were not, in operation (ENTRIX 2004). Studies continued into early 2004 to better understand winter spawning and rearing conditions in the anadromous reaches of these streams (ENTRIX 2004a).

There are several partial and complete migration barriers on Liddell Creek that limit access to the upper reaches of all three branches and limit the available habitat for anadromous steelhead (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001; ENTRIX 2004). ENTRIX conducted a habitat characterization survey along the Main and East branches from the creek mouth to the City’s diversion on the East Branch of Liddell Creek in October 2003 (ENTRIX 2004). The complete barrier on the Main Branch was located 6,811 feet (1.29 miles) upstream from the creek mouth and just downstream from the confluence of the Middle and East Branches. The anadromous reach in the Main Branch of Liddell Creek is 1.29 miles long and represents approximately 51 percent of the length of the Main and East branches downstream of the City’s diversion (ENTRIX 2004) and some undefined portion of the West Branch (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001).

A total of 716 square feet of spawning gravel was observed by ENTRIX (2004) in the wetted channel of the anadromous reach of the Main Branch. ENTRIX (2004) observed that the majority of the gravels of suitable size for spawning in the anadromous reach of the Main Branch were located areas unlikely to be used by spawning steelhead (i.e., runs and pool bottoms). Normalized over the length of the anadromous reach, there was 0.11 square feet of spawning gravel per foot of stream (ENTRIX 2004a). The distribution of gravel varied within the reach, but the largest amount occurred within the lower half of the anadromous reach.

The surveys conducted by ENTRIX (2004) and Environmental Science Associates (2001) indicate that Liddell Creek provides relatively good rearing habitat for steelhead in the Main Branch and portions of the West Branch but that no lagoon is formed for potential use as rearing habitat (Berry pers. comm. 2004). Both surveys indicated that the anadromous reaches of the creek have good instream cover in the form of undercut banks. Both surveys report a relatively high level of canopy cover and channel shading, greater than 70 percent in all reaches. Average pool depths reported by Environmental Science Associates (2001) range from <1.0 foot to 2.0. Mean pool depth in the anadromous reach during the ENTRIX survey was 0.71 feet with a mean maximum depth of 1.15 feet.

Based on the surveys conducted in 1980 through 1983, 2001, and 2003 all three branches of Liddell Creek are subject to severe sedimentation, although the upper portion of the West Branch is more severely impacted than the lower portion (ENTRIX 2004; Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). Therefore, Environmental Science Associates (2001) concluded that sedimentation may be the primary limiting factor in this watershed. Sedimentation affects the amount of spawning habitat (embedding gravels), the amount of rearing habitat (infilling pools), and production of salmonid food. Of the anadromous reaches, little suitable spawning substrate was observed in the Main Branch. Further, Environmental Science Associates (2001) suggested that redds may have a high sand content and redd destruction from scouring is common. In some years (e.g., 1983) late spring storms may either have destroyed redds or caused severe mortality among recently emerged fry (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-19 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Laguna/Liddell Reach Limited data is available on Y Creek1, a tributary to Laguna Creek. Y Creek is a relatively steep stream characterized by an abundance of cascades, boulders, and bedrock. All steelhead observations (approximately 30 young-of-the-year fish) occurred near the creek’s confluence with Laguna Creek (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). Environmental Science Associates (2001) reported that the cascade located below the confluence of Laguna and Y creeks was a formidable barrier to salmonid migration and that the channel in Y Creek beyond the fall was extremely steep.

Laguna Reach The Laguna Creek watershed has two major tributaries, Y Creek and Reggiardo Creek. Habitat surveys were conducted on portions of the Laguna Creek watershed by Environmental Science Associates in May 2001 and ENTRIX in 1997, June 2001 (2002), and October 2003 (2004). The survey conducted by Environmental Science Associates was conducted from the creek mouth to the confluence with Y Creek and portions of Y Creek. In 2001, ENTRIX surveyed habitat from the creek mouth to the City’s Laguna Creek Diversion located approximately 4.19 miles upstream (ENTRIX 2002b). In October 2003, ENTRIX conducted supplemental habitat surveys with the City’s diversion in operation and not operating, from the creek mouth to the first complete fish passage barrier near the confluence with Y Creek (ENTRIX 2004). Additional surveys in the anadromous reach continued into spring of 2004 (ENTRIX 2004a).

The anadromous reach starts at the mouth and continues to the first total barrier to steelhead migration at 7,572 feet (1.43 miles) upstream of the lagoon and just downstream of the confluence between Laguna Creek and Y Creek (ENTRIX 2004). This barrier is a series of cascades that range in height from 3 to 6 feet. Based on these observations, the anadromous reach in Laguna Creek consists of 1.43 miles of the creek downstream of the confluence of Laguna and Y creeks. This area represents approximately 33 percent of the length of Laguna Creek downstream of the City’s diversion (ENTRIX 2004).

According to recent studies, spawning habitat within the anadromous reach is limited to some fair quality spawning gravels for steelhead (ENTRIX 2002b, 2004; Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). During the low flow conditions in October of 2003, ENTRIX observed a total of approximately 180 square feet of spawning gravels in the 1.43 miles of stream channel surveyed. Normalized for its length, the anadromous reach contained 0.02 square feet of gravel per foot of stream.

Three surveys of this area have been completed in recent years in May (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001), June (ENTRIX 2002b) and October (ENTRIX 2004). The lagoon and the anadromous reach of Laguna Creek provide good quality rearing habitat at the observed summer and fall streamflows. The lagoon has an area of approximately 0.5 acres with another approximately 1 acre of freshwater marsh adjacent to it. This lagoon-marsh complex forms habitat with suitable depth and cover conditions for rearing steelhead in normal or above average water years. There are records of anadromous steelhead trout in the lower 1.43 miles of Laguna Creek in 1982, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000, and 2001 (Harvey & Stanley Associates 1982; McGinnis 1991; CDFG 1996; Jones & Stokes 2000; ENTRIX, 2002b).

1 This creek is not named on USGS maps. The name “Y Creek” has been used for this project to help identify the tributary and was so named because it is located adjacent to the “Y” in the City’s North Coast Pipeline. ESA (2001) also used this name.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-20 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Majors Reach The Majors Creek watershed (4.9 square miles) drains from the Santa Cruz Mountains directly to the Pacific Ocean. There are numerous small springs and seeps that contribute to Majors Creek downstream of the City’s diversion, but there are no substantial tributaries. Habitat characterization studies for salmonids have been conducted in recent years by ENTRIX in June 2001 (ENTRIX 2002b), KES in the fall of 2001 (2001), and ENTRIX in October 2003 (ENTRIX 2004). Prior to these studies the most recent report was prepared by Harvey & Stanley Associates (1982). The ENTRIX habitat surveys in 2001 were conducted from the lagoon to the City’s Majors Creek Diversion site. The KES survey and the most recent ENTRIX survey in 2003 only covered the anadromous reach to the first complete barrier, 0.71 miles upstream of the lagoon.

The three studies conducted in recent years (KES 2001; ENTRIX 2002b, 2004) indicate that there are no significant potential barriers to adult steelhead migration in Majors Creek up to the first complete barrier located approximately 3,744 feet (0.71 miles) upstream of the creek mouth. Four additional barriers have been identified upstream of the first complete barrier (ENTRIX 2002b).

A large portion of the Majors Creek watershed is underlain by the Santa Margarita formation. In addition, the watershed was formerly logged and both the underlying watershed material and logging activity contribute to high delivery of fine sediment to the anadromous reach.

Based on the surveys conducted by ENTRIX (2002b and 2004) and KES (2001), very little spawning habitat exists in the 0.71 mile long anadromous reach for steelhead. During the low flow conditions of this study, within the anadromous reach ENTRIX (2004) observed a total 49 square feet of spawning gravels. Normalized along the anadromous reach length yields 0.01 square feet of gravel per foot of stream length (ENTRIX 2004a). The primary limiting factor for spawning habitat in the anadromous reach is the limited availability of spawning gravels in the pool tailouts.

The Majors Creek lagoon did not provide good rearing habitat for steelhead during June 2001 survey (ENTRIX 2002b). The lagoon was shallow, had a sandy bottom, and was devoid of any cover elements (ENTRIX 2002b). The anadromous reach provides good quality rearing habitat with well developed pools (KES 2001; ENTRIX 2002b, 2004). Extensive cover is available throughout the reach consisting of terrestrial vegetation, some boulder and cobble, and undercut banks. Steelhead have been observed in the lowest reach of Majors Creek, downstream of the Highway 1 culvert (Harvey & Stanley Associates 1982; HES 2001; KES 2001; ENTRIX 2002b).

NCP Reach The NCP Reach crosses the following streams that provide habitat for steelhead; Baldwin Creek, Peasley Gulch, and Wilder Creek.

Baldwin Creek drains a watershed of 2.1 square miles and discharges directly to the Pacific Ocean at the western end of 4-Mile Beach. The City’s pipeline crosses Baldwin Creek approximately 1,750 feet upstream of the creek mouth at the Highway 1 overpass. In May 2001, CDPR contracted for a detailed habitat assessment of Baldwin Creek from its confluence with the ocean, upstream to the high-gradient redwood forest habitat area (KES 2001). For the assessment, Baldwin Creek was divided into five separate reaches. The creek was flowing into the ocean at the time of the survey (May 2001), although the flow was quite low.

In May 2001, KES (2001) surveyed Baldwin creek and observed that there was connectivity between the ocean and the stream, although the flow was quite low. It is likely that at times a barrier beach precludes access to this tributary. The KES survey report (2001) also indicates that fish passage between the lagoon and the creek above the impoundments in the lower reach may be severely

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-21 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources constrained or impossible at some flow levels. Adjacent to the impoundments the stream is a heavily vegetated marsh area with a poorly defined channel. A berm and culvert used to divert flow into the impoundment may also pose a problem for fish passage and outmigration if in use during winter flows.

If passage is possible at the impoundments, the anadromous reach extends approximately one mile upstream of Highway 1 (KES 2001). At this point the stream gradient becomes steep and forms the first complete barrier to fish passage, a two-stage cascade with a drop of 15 feet (KES 2001).

Habitat types were only delineated on reach 4 as part of the KES survey (2001). KES (2001) estimated that spawning gravel area was 1,730 feet per mile, 460 feet per mile, and 100 feet per mile in the lower, middle, and upper sections of the study reach. Rearing conditions for steelhead, if steelhead can access this reach, were characterized as favorable during the KES survey, from just upstream of the Highway 1 culvert to the complete barrier (KES 2001). The lower and middle portions of this reach are relatively low in gradient with a well-defined channel and a riparian canopy of approximately 80 percent to 95 percent. The KES survey (2001) did not describe habitat conditions in the “lagoon-like area” at the mouth of Baldwin Creek.

Peasley Gulch is a tributary to Wilder Creek. The City’s North Coast pipeline crosses Peasley Gulch approximately 0.75 miles from the confluence of Peasley Gulch and Wilder Creek.

KES surveyed 0.5 miles of this creek from a point 0.25 miles upstream of its confluence with Wilder Creek. The first 0.25 miles of stream were dry at the time of the survey. No passage barriers were observed in this reach (KES 2001).

In Peasley Gulch the substrate was predominantly sand, gravel, and small cobble, some of which forms favorable spawning gravels (KES 2001). No redds were observed, but KES reported seeing high numbers of trout fry (potentially steelhead) in this section of the stream indicating spawning success earlier that year.

Peasley Gulch provides favorable conditions for steelhead spawning and young-of-the-year production (KES 2001). The reach surveyed had several large debris jams up to 6 feet high, with lesser cover provided by root wads and smaller woody debris. The riparian canopy is moderate and the substrate is predominantly sand. KES (2001) indicated that the reach would not provide suitable rearing habitat for fish past their first year.

Wilder Creek watershed is 6.0 square miles and includes Peasley Gulch and Cave Gulch. Wilder Creek drains directly to the Pacific Ocean at Wilder Creek Beach. The stream transitions from a beach lagoon to a low-gradient stream and then to a high-gradient, forested stream. The City’s North Coast pipeline crosses Wilder Creek approximately 6,275 feet upstream of the creek mouth within the reach potentially accessible to steelhead. In 2001, KES conducted a detailed habitat assessment of Wilder Creek from its outlet to the ocean, upstream to its confluence with Cave Gulch (2001). In 2000 a dam forming an agricultural pond was removed and a portion of the stream in the lower reaches below Highway 1 was restored (KES 2001).

Steelhead have access to approximately 2 miles of stream habitat in Wilder Creek. A natural falls 0.5 miles below the Cave Gulch confluence presents a passage barrier under most, if not all, flow conditions (KES 2001). Wilder Creek is contained by a beach sandbar at the creek mouth during the dry season forming a lagoon approximately 2,000 feet long (KES 2001). The reach immediately upstream of the lagoon has a gravel and sand substrate, is low gradient and tends to be braided with no prominent stream channel. KES (2001) noted that even during high winter flows fish passage may

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-22 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources be difficult in this area. Upstream of the railroad tunnel the stream channel is well defined, but includes a potential fish migration barrier in the upper part of this reach, where a concrete road crossing forms a 1-foot drop at its lower edge. This ledge may impair passage at low flows but is likely passable at higher flows (KES 2001).

Other NCP Reaches The remaining streams in the North Coast Area including Scaroni Creek, Gordola Creek, an unnamed creek, Lombardi Gulch, Sandy Flat Gulch, Old Dairy Gulch, and Moore Creek are not considered steelhead streams due to a lack of access or an intermittent flow pattern. Access is limited by agricultural ponds near the creek mouth on Gordola Creek and the unnamed creek. Lombardi Gulch access is limited by intermittent flow. Sedimentation ponds associated with the sand quarry north of Highway 1 located on the lower reaches of Sandy Flat Gulch prevent fish passage into this creek and its tributary Old Dairy Gulch. Intermittent flow may also be a limiting factor.

Coho Salmon Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Project area are part of the Central California Coast ESU which is listed as endangered under the federal ESA (6/14/04) and endangered under CESA (12/31/95). Under the federal ESA, the Central California Coast ESU extends from the San Lorenzo River in Santa Cruz County to Punta Gorda in Humboldt County (Federal Register 1996). Critical habitat has been designated for the Central California Coast ESU including the accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuarine areas and tributaries) between Punta Gorda and the San Lorenzo River (inclusive) (Federal Register 1999). The CDFG prepared a recovery strategy consistent with CESA. NOAA Fisheries is currently in the process of updating status review and revisiting listing determinations for all salmon and steelhead ESUs that have one or more hatchery populations included in the ESU which includes the Central California Coast ESU for coho salmon (CDFG 2004).

Central California represents the southern margin of the species’ natural distribution, and coastal streams of Santa Cruz County constitute the southernmost extent of coho distribution. Currently, the southernmost stream that contains coho salmon is Aptos Creek. Historic and present ranges of coho salmon in Santa Cruz County include Gazos, Waddell, Scott, San Vicente, Soquel, and Aptos creeks and the San Lorenzo River (CDFG 2003a, 2004). During recent surveys (2000-2002) coho salmon were found in Gazos, Waddell and Scott creeks. No coho have been observed in the San Lorenzo River in recent years (CDFG 2003b; H.T. Harvey & Associates 2003; DWA 2000, 2002), and wild coho salmon have not been reported recently in streams within the Project area.

Life History and Habitat Requirements Coho spawning migrations from the ocean to freshwater streams or rivers usually begin after the first heavy rains in late fall or winter at the mouths of creeks. The timing of their migration varies somewhat throughout their range, but in the short coastal streams of central California, coho typically return to fresh water during November through February. Females construct redds near the head of a riffle in substrate consisting of gravel and small cobble. The female may dig several pits to complete spawning, probably laying a few hundred eggs in each pit. Coho average 2,500 eggs per female. Shapovalov and Taft (1954) found that the average incubation time for coho on Waddell Creek was 35 to 50 days. Temperatures at this time should not exceed 55ºF (12.8°C) (Shapovalov and Taft 1954).

Newly-hatched fry (embryos) remain in the interstices of the gravel for approximately 3 weeks before emerging and schooling in still, shallow water along stream margins. As they grow during the spring, juvenile coho disperse to pools where they set up individual territories. After spending the ensuing summer, fall and winter in the stream, the immature yearling coho begin to migrate downstream

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-23 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources toward the ocean in spring. During this time, juveniles undergo smoltification. Growth in freshwater varies with a number of factors, but typically smolts leaving California streams as “yearlings” (12-15 months old) measure 8 to 15 centimeters (cm) in Fork Length. Some juveniles may achieve even larger sizes before emigration by staying 2 years in the stream (Moyle 2002). Outmigration typically peaks from late April to mid-May, if conditions are favorable (Moyle 2002). After entering the ocean, immature coho salmon initially remain inshore, close to the parent stream. Gradually, they spread out, over the continental shelf, where they grow much more rapidly than in the stream.

California coho salmon have a fairly strict 3-year life cycle, with about half spent in freshwater and half spent in salt water. After 2 years of growing and sexually maturing in the ocean, coho return to their natal streams as 3-year-olds to spawn and die. Shapovalov and Taft (1954) found the average rate of survival for coho was 0.13 percent from the egg (varying from .02 to .03 percent in different seasons), and survival from the entrance into the ocean averaged 2.3 percent (ranging in different seasons from 0.6 to 5.4 percent). Rates of survival tend to vary inversely with the size of the year class (Shapovalov and Taft 1954).

Freshwater habitat requirements for coho rearing include adequate cover, food supply, and water temperatures of (54º-57ºF is optimal). Primary habitat for coho includes pools with extensive cover. The factors most limiting to juvenile coho production are high summer water temperatures, poor summer and winter habitat quality, and predation (Moyle 2002).

Coho Occurrence in the Project Area There are no recent records of coho inhabiting any of the streams in the Project area. There is some indication that much of the former coho production in the San Lorenzo River was the result of stocking from the 1950s throughout the mid-1970s (Alley 2000). Coho salmon have experienced a significant decline in the past 40 to 50 years. Coho salmon abundance, including hatchery stocks, has declined by at least 70% since the 1960s, and is currently 6 to 15% of its abundance during the 1940s (CDFG 2004). In response to the documented critical condition of native coho runs, CDFG (2004) developed a draft Recovery Strategy dated November 2003 for California coho (CDFG 2004). The California Fish and Game Commission then approved the Recovery Strategy on February 4, 2004, as modified by the Response to Comments, and inclusive of CDFG’s recommendations for specific provisions of the timber management alternatives (2004). To date, no coho habitat studies have been conducted within the Project area.

Tidewater Goby Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) is currently a federally-listed endangered species (USFWS 1994) and has had fully protected status from the state of California since 1987. Tidewater gobies are known to inhabit the coastal lagoons of several streams in the Project area including Laguna, Baldwin, Wilder, and Moore creeks (Smith and Welch 1996; Smith 2001). Habitat for the goby is present in the Majors Creek lagoon (Smith 2001).

Life History and Habitat Requirements The tidewater goby is a small estuarine fish, rarely exceeding 2 inches in length, that inhabits lagoons and tidally-influenced regions of rivers from San Diego County to Del Norte County, California. It favors the calm conditions that prevail when the lagoons are cut off from the ocean by beach sandbars. The tidewater goby’s life span is approximately 1 year.

Tidewater gobies are bottom dwellers and are typically found at water depths of less than 3 feet. Tidewater gobies typically inhabit areas of slow-moving water, avoiding strong wave actions or currents. Particularly important to the persistence of the species in lagoons is the presence of

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-24 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources backwater, marshy habitats, as well as annual sandbar formation to avoid being flushed out to the ocean during winter flood flows (J. Smith pers. comm., 1999 as referenced in Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001). They may spawn at anytime of the year (Goldberg 1977, as cited in Wang 1986), but spawning typically peaks in late April through early May (Swift et al. 1989). Spawning takes place in burrows that are dug 4 to 8 inches deep in coarse sand. Tidewater gobies have been reported to spawn at water temperatures of 56° to 70°F (13° to 21° C) and 64.4° to 71.6°F (18° to 22°C) (Swift et al. 1989; Wang 1986). Spawning reportedly takes place at fairly low to moderate salinities (5 to 10 parts per thousand [ppt] [Swift et al. 1989] and less than 14 ppt [Wang 1986]). Optimal lagoon habitats are shallow, sandy-bottomed areas 20 to 10 cm deep, surrounded by beds of emergent vegetation. Open areas are critical for breeding, while vegetation is critical for overwintering survival (providing refuge from high flows) and probably for feeding as well (Moyle 2002). After hatching, the larval tidewater gobies, measuring 4 to 5 millimeters (mm) in standard length (SL), emerge from the burrow and swim upward to join the plankton (Wang 1986; Swift et al. 1989). Juvenile tidewater gobies become benthic dwellers at 16 to 18 mm SL (Moyle 2002).

Tidewater Goby Occurrence in the Project Area Tidewater gobies appear to be relatively abundant in the lower reaches of Laguna, Baldwin, Wilder, and Moore creeks (Smith and Welch 1996; Smith 2001). No studies have been conducted in the Majors Creek lagoon for tidewater gobies, however, observed conditions suggest the lagoon provides favorable habitat for tidewater gobies (Smith 2001). Recent PWA observations indicate Liddell and Laguna lagoons would not be suitable habitat for the gobies.

In Baldwin Creek, tidewater gobies are common in the portion of the lagoon downstream of the marsh, and some have been found in the freshwater on-channel/off-channel pond to the north (Smith and Welch, 1996). In Wilder Creek, gobies have been observed downstream of the marsh near the sandbar (Smith and Welch 1996). In Moore Creek, gobies have been found downstream of Antonelli’s Pond (Smith and Welch 1996).

In central and southern California, populations of tidewater gobies are controlled mainly by environmental conditions (e.g., sandbar breaching, sedimentation, and pollutants). When streams flood and lagoon barriers are breached, creating a strong tidally-influenced environment, populations tend to plummet; although the goby population quickly recovers in the summer when the sandbar reforms, creating the non-tidal brackish lagoons preferred by tidewater gobies. Many of these small coastal watersheds are highly developed for agriculture use. The general effect of these activities is to increase sedimentation of lagoons. Increased sedimentation usually creates large amounts of shallow, warm habitats that may be unsuitable for tidewater gobies and suitable for exotic predators.

Pacific Lamprey The Pacific lamprey eel (Lampetra tridentata) is an anadromous species known to inhabit portions of the San Lorenzo River Watershed but has not been reported in the Project area. It is not currently listed as threatened or endangered by NOAA Fisheries or in the State of California but is a species of special concern within the state.

Life History and Habitat Requirements Pacific lamprey are anadromous, spending four to seven years in freshwater and one to two years in the ocean. Spawning lamprey, like steelhead, are dependent on winter storms providing sufficient streamflow to open the mouth of the lagoon to the ocean, and to provide adequate streamflow to allow for upstream migration. Adult lamprey in the ocean are thought to remain near their natal streams (Moyle 2002). Adults usually move up into spawning streams between early March and late June. However, upstream movements in January and February have also been observed in some

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-25 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources streams (Moyle 2002). Most upstream migration takes place at night and tends to occur in surges, although small numbers may move upstream more or less continuously over a two- to four-month period (Moyle 2002). Pacific lamprey build nests in gravel and rock substrates in areas of low velocity (Moyle 1976). Spawning is repeated on the same nest a number of times until both sexes are spent (Moyle 2002). Eggs and ammocoetes (young lamprey) have been collected in water temperatures ranging from 55.5° to 65°F (13.1° to 18.3°C). The embryos hatch in approximately 19 days, and after hatching, ammocoetes spend a short time in the nest gravel. Eventually they swim up into the current and are washed downstream to a suitable area of soft sand and mud. Ammocoetes burrow tail first into the sand or mud and begin their lives as filter feeders, sucking organic matter and algae off the substrate surface (Moyle 2002). Adult lamprey (14 to 16 cm in total length) are parasitic on larger fish, although their attacks are seldom fatal (Wang 1986). Pacific lampreys, with the exception of land-locked populations, spend the predatory phase of their life in the ocean attacking a wide variety of fishes, including various salmon and flatfishes (Moyle 2002).

Pacific Lamprey Occurrence in the Project Area Pacific lampreys are present in several areas of the San Lorenzo River Watershed, but are not reported present in any of the North Coast streams (H.T. Harvey & Associates 2003). Electro-fishing on Wilder Creek, Peasley Gulch and Majors Creek in the Project area did not capture any lampreys and no observations of lampreys were reported.

Amphibian and Reptilian Resources

The federally listed California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle, a California species of special concern, occur in the Project area.

California Red-legged Frog The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) was listed as threatened under the federal ESA on May 23, 1996 (USFWS 1996). California red-legged frogs historically occurred in coastal mountains from Sonoma County, California south to northern Baja, California and along the Sierra Nevada foothills from Shasta County to Kern County (Jennings and Hayes 1994). This species is apparently extirpated from much of the southern portions of its historical range and now occurs mainly in coastal areas and in the Sierra Nevada.

Life History and Habitat Requirements California red-legged frogs are usually found in or near aquatic habitats, but adults may be found up to one mile away from aquatic areas during rainy nights (USFWS 2002). All life history phases are most likely to be found near spawning areas. Suitable spawning pools are usually characterized by dense bordering and emergent vegetation cover (willows, cattails, tules, sedges), moderately deep water (2.3 to 3.9 ft), and a complex forage base for all life history stages. The typical forage base includes extensive aquatic vegetation (tadpole forage), a complex invertebrate fauna, and small rodents (such as voles, Microtus). Suitable spawning pools include (but are not limited to) coastal lagoons, marshes, springs, permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds, irrigation ponds, siltation ponds, creek backwaters, and any other freshwater pool with adequate solar exposure to promote aquatic vegetation and forage (Hayes and Jennings 1989). Eggs are usually attached to emergent vegetation in breeding habitats, and tadpoles remain in these habitats until metamorphosis takes place (Storer 1925). Young California red-legged frogs are typically found in slow-moving, shallow riffle habitats in creeks and along the margins of ponds. Adults require emergent vegetation or dense riparian vegetation and associated deep (approximately 2 to 3 feet), slow-moving water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Ideal creek habitats have an open canopy, plentiful basking surfaces (e.g., exposed rocks, logs, or sand), and readily accessible riparian cover. Exotic predators such as bullfrogs (Rana

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-26 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources catesbeiana) and centrarchid fish are usually absent from high-quality California red-legged frog spawning habitat.

Breeding takes place between late November and April, with the peak season occurring in February (USFWS 1996). Egg masses average 500-2,000 eggs (up to 6,000 have been recorded) (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Eggs hatch within 6 to 14 days and tadpoles transform to sub-adult frogs usually between July and September (Storer 1925; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Adults reach sexual maturity in approximately 3 to 4 years, and individual frogs are believed to live 8 to 10 years.

California red-legged frogs may disperse upstream and downstream of their breeding habitat to forage and seek estivation habitat (Storer 1925; Stebbins 1951). California red-legged frogs in coastal drainages are rarely inactive, whereas those found in interior sites are normally less active during the cold season (Storer 1925). Hibernation and estivation microhabitats are undocumented, but well vegetated, terrestrial areas including vegetation mats, rodent burrows, and root channels within riparian corridors may provide shelter during the winter. California red-legged frogs may estivate in small mammal burrows and moist litter (Jennings and Hayes 1994). However, estivation habitat potentially includes all aquatic and riparian areas within the range of the species, and any landscape features that provide cover and moisture during the dry season within 300 feet of a riparian area (USFWS 1996). Agricultural features such as drains, watering troughs, and spring boxes may also be used.

California Red-Legged Frog Occurrence in the Project Area Literature reviews, CNDDB record searches, and discussions with local consulting biologists and agency personnel identified 19 California red-legged frog locations in the area covered on the Santa Cruz, Davenport, and Felton 7.5-minute series topographic quadrangle U.S. Geological Survey Map (Bryan Mori Biological Consulting Services 1997, 2001). In 1997, the USFWS biologist responsible for reviewing the site assessments and surveys for California red-legged frogs in Santa Cruz County indicated that they are known to occur within an 8-mile radius of the Majors and Laguna creek diversions, and the coastal streams in Santa Cruz County are likely used by California red-legged frogs (at least for summer foraging habitat) (ENTRIX 1997). A letter from Mark Jennings (1993) also indicated that California red-legged frogs occur in the coastal streams of Santa Cruz County. Metamorphosed California red-legged frogs occur along Liddell Creek and along Yellow Bank Creek (Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001), along Laguna Creek and Majors Creeks (ENTRIX 2002b), within Wilder Ranch State Park (including Wilder Creek, Baldwin Creek, and Majors Creek) (KES 2001), in the Moore Creek stream channel (including the Moore Creek Preserve) (Bulger 1999), and in bypass ponds along Lombardi Creek within the Dimeo Lane (Santa Cruz) Landfill (Bland and Associates 2002). The other creeks appear to lack the usual spawning habitat characteristics such as deep, still or slow water and dense cover and thus offer only “summer” foraging habitat or hibernation/estivation shelter sites. Spawning habitat is limited along most of the north coast streams because of the shallow, fast water and absence of bordering vegetative cover at and below the anadromous reaches along the creeks.

The primary data gap for this region is that the locations of the most important spawning habitat sites for each basin are unknown. Although it is possible that spawning occurs in isolated pockets along the “summer habitat” stream reaches, the apparent absence of juvenile frogs and tadpoles based on the various survey results in the North Coast streams suggests that spawning occurs in other habitat.

Liddell Reach The Environmental Science Associates (2001) Existing Conditions Report and the ENTRIX (2004) 2003 Habitat Characterization Report indicate that portions of Liddell Creek provide suitable sheltering or dispersal habitat for California red-legged frogs. The surveys conducted by

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-27 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Environmental Science Associates yielded multiple California red-legged frog observations along the middle branch of Liddell Creek and elsewhere on the Coast Dairies properties. Pool and flatwater habitat account for 73 percent of the anadromous reach, from the creek mouth to 1.29 miles upstream of the lagoon. The pool units in this reach are considered poor to fair summer foraging habitat because of the lack of suitable depth and basking surfaces (i.e., exposed rocks, logs, or sand). Also, instream cover in the anadromous reach is complex and extremely dense, which limits basking sites. The channel in this reach becomes more confined from river mile (RM) 1.29 to the diversion dam (2.54 miles upstream of the lagoon) (ENTRIX 2004). Pool and flatwater habitat account for 89 percent of the habitat units in this reach, but instream cover is less complex and extensive than in the anadromous reach. The habitat units present in this reach provide more suitable sheltering or dispersal habitat for California red-legged frogs than spawning or summer foraging habitat.

Laguna Reach Based on the habitat characterization conducted in June 2001, portions of Laguna Creek and lagoon provide suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs (ENTRIX 2002b). The results show that the majority of suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs is found in the anadromous reach, from the creek mouth to 1.43 miles upstream of the lagoon. The non-anadromous reach extends from river mile (RM) 1.43 to the diversion dam. Overall, the pools observed in the anadromous reach have less canopy cover, and therefore have more basking sites for thermoregulation than the non-anadromous reach. The anadromous reach also has more backwater pools with complex cover than the non- anadromous reach. A large portion of the diversion pond is filled with sediment and does not have any overhanging or emergent vegetation. Therefore, in its current condition, the diversion pond does not provide suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs (ENTRIX 2002b).

There is a significant amount of suitable summer foraging habitat in the Laguna Creek system (ENTRIX 2002b). The lagoon is likely to provide summer foraging and spawning habitat, because it is completely sunlit and has dense emergent vegetation all around its edges to provide cover. Pools in the anadromous reach provide the most favorable summer foraging habitat in the system. The anadromous reach provides some moderate to excellent summer foraging habitat for California red- legged frogs. There are several pools with suitable depth, open canopy, complex cover, and foraging opportunities. The non-anadromous reach is heavily shaded and has fewer pools that are relatively deep and provide complex cover. Suitable California red-legged frog foraging habitat in the anadromous reach was typically found where tanbark oak had fallen into the creek, creating instream cover and open canopy. The diversion pond provides little summer foraging habitat, because it is mostly filled with sediment and does not have overhanging vegetation. California red-legged frogs have also been observed on Y Creek, a tributary to Laguna Creek just upstream of the confluence of the Liddell and Laguna pipelines.

The June 2001 habitat characterization indicates that portions of Laguna Creek and its lagoon provide suitable summer foraging and dispersal habitat and marginal spawning habitat for California red- legged frogs (ENTRIX 2002b). A total of 86 adult red-legged frogs were observed in Laguna Creek during the June 2001 study (ENTRIX 2002b). Most of the suitable summer habitat for California red- legged frogs occurs in the anadromous reach, from the creek mouth to 1.43 miles upstream of the lagoon (ENTRIX 2004). The anadromous reach pools have less canopy cover and more basking sites than the pools along the non-anadromous reach. The anadromous reach also has more backwater pools with complex cover than does the non-anadromous reach. The vast majority (83) of the red- legged frogs observed during the ENTRIX 2001 (2002) survey were observed in this reach. Little suitable summer habitat for red-legged frogs was observed in the non-anadromous reach, even though this reach is longer than the anadromous reach (ENTRIX 2002b). Only three adult red-legged frogs were observed. These frogs and suitable habitat was limited to the few sunlit pools where fallen trees had created gaps in the canopy and thus providing basking habitat.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-28 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Majors Reach Based on the habitat characterization conducted in June 2001, breeding and overwintering habitat are in short supply on Majors Creek. The lagoon does not provide breeding habitat for California red- legged frogs (ENTRIX 2002b). The lagoon is shallow and devoid of emergent vegetation around its edges. The anadromous reach, from the creek mouth to 0.71 miles upstream of the lagoon, has a few backwater pools with small patches of emergent vegetation, which may be suitable for breeding and provide high-flow refuge. The non-anadromous reach, from RM 0.71 to the diversion, does not provide suitable breeding or overwintering habitat. The majority of the pools in both reaches have greater than 75% of their banks covered with vegetation. The anadromous reach has a higher proportion of pools, with the total area of instream cover greater than 25%. The Majors Creek diversion pond may provide favorable breeding habitat. The diversion pond measured greater than 10 feet deep, and had some dense overhanging riparian vegetation around the edges for attaching egg masses (ENTRIX 2002b). Majors Creek provides some suitable habitat for summer foraging (ENTRIX 2002b). The lagoon does not provide summer foraging habitat, because it lacks escape cover of any type. The anadromous reach provides moderate to excellent summer foraging habitat for California red-legged frogs. Many of the pools have open canopy, complex cover, foraging opportunities, and suitable depth. The non-anadromous reach is heavily shaded and has fewer pools with suitable depth that provide complex cover. In addition, sand has buried most of the pool and flatwater habitat in the non-anadromous reach, which diminishes aquatic invertebrate production and habitat depth. The diversion pond provides summer foraging habitat. The pond is deep, sunlit, and has overhanging and emergent vegetation (ENTRIX 2002b).

Twenty California red-legged frogs were observed along Majors Creek during the June 2001 habitat survey (ENTRIX 2002b). The habitat characterization indicates that Majors Creek offers summer foraging and dispersal California red-legged frog habitat and limited potential spawning habitat, primarily along the anadromous reach. Due to stream modifications Majors Creek now lacks a well- defined lagoon (Berry pers. comm. 2004). All that remains is a shallow pool devoid of perimeter emergent vegetation, with no potential as spawning habitat for California red-legged frogs (ENTRIX 2002b). Sixteen of the 20 Majors Creek red-legged frog observations occurred along the anadromous reach of Majors Creek (creek mouth to 0.71 miles upstream) (ENTRIX 2002b). Scattered backwater pools with small patches of emergent vegetation characteristic of California red-legged frog spawning habitat also exist along the anadromous reach. The entire reach appears to offer fair to good summer foraging habitat. Spawning and summer foraging habitat seem nearly absent from the non- anadromous reach, most of which lacks sunlit backwater or quiet pools. Only four of the 20 frogs observed during the 2001 study were found along the non-anadromous reach.

NCP Reach The NCP crosses the following streams that provide habitat for CRLF; Scaroni Creek, Baldwin Creek, Wilder Creek, Moore Creek, and Lombardi Creek:

Scaroni Creek is an ephemeral stream with a very small watershed located between Laguna and Majors creeks. Its headwaters form just upgradient of Highway 1. The creek passes under Highway 1 in a culvert and flows southwest across Sandy Bluff. This area has not been surveyed because it exists entirely on private lands. Two in-channel agricultural ponds have been developed in the lower portion of the creek. The ponds receive surface water diverted from Laguna Creek via pipeline. The City’s pipeline crosses Scaroni Creek on the upgradient side of Highway 1 very near the headwaters and well upstream of the ponds.

Baldwin Creek is known to offer excellent California red-legged frog habitat. During the habitat assessments conducted in May 2001 (KES 2001), at least four California red-legged frogs were seen

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-29 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources in the lowest section of Baldwin Creek in the area between the impoundments and the railroad tunnel culvert. In this section, the creek flows through a defined stream channel with a riparian overstory of willow and alder. California red-legged frogs were also observed between the culvert and private residence in an area with large alders and many pools. In addition, a large, deep potentially suitable pool has been formed at the residence on the east bank (KES 2001).

Wilder Creek offers all California red-legged habitat types and components for much of its length within Wilder Ranch State Park. Jennings and Hayes (1994) identified this creek habitat as optimal, as reflected by the large resident frog population. The KES (2001) Wilder Creek surveys recorded California red-legged frogs from the lagoon habitat (just behind the beach) upstream to the small tributary pools. In the lagoon, California red-legged frogs were found in the dense marsh vegetation several feet from the water and on the overgrown silty banks near the water’s edge. In the redwood forest area, they were basking on bedrock outcrops up to 4 feet above the water surface and on cobble substrate a few feet from the stream (KES 2001). Thus, the potential for occurrence of spawning sites along this creek is high.

Moore Creek within Moore Creek Preserve provides summer and potential spawning habitat for California red-legged frogs. Juveniles produced at nearby ponds (University of California at Santa Cruz Arboretum and to the west of the Preserve) may also migrate to Moore Creek soon after metamorphosis. The creek also offers potential dispersal corridor habitat (Bulger 1999). California red-legged frogs have been observed in seasonal ponds at the headwaters of Moore Creek and at Antonelli Pond near the mouth of the creek (CDFG 2003a).

Lombardi Creek provides habitat for California red-legged frogs within the Dimeo Lane Landfill (City of Santa Cruz) along Lombardi Creek in the North Canyon bypass pond and West Canyon bypass pond (where egg masses were observed in 1999) and in the South Outlet (Bland and Associates 2002). The Bland and Associates study found red-legged frogs downstream of the landfill along Lombardi Creek. Habitat values along Lombardi Creek include spawning/rearing habitat (bypass ponds), summer foraging habitat (bypass ponds and Lombardi Creek channel), and dispersal corridors (Lombardi Creek channel).

Southwestern Pond Turtle Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorta pallida) is classified as a California species of special concern and is the only abundant native turtle in the state (Zeiner et al. 1988). Historically, it occurred in most Pacific slope drainages from the Oregon to the Mexican border. The current range is similar to the historic range, but populations have become fragmented and reduced by agriculture, urban development, and habitat alteration and degradation. Populations may also be vulnerable to predation or competition from introduced exotics such as bullfrogs and eastern US centrarchid fish (Holland 1994; Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Life History and Habitat Requirements Southwestern pond turtles live in rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, vernal pools, seasonal wetlands, and intermittent streams where permanent pools exist. Although they prefer freshwater, they also tolerate slightly brackish conditions such as coastal lagoons. Adult turtles require still or slow moving water in fully sunlit waterways but they also swim easily in very fast water. Pond turtles spend most of their time basking, and they do not occur where secure basking sites are absent. During the spring and autumn they typically bask fully exposed on logs, or rocks, or banks, but during the warmest months they bask at the water surface and are much more difficult to locate even in favorable habitat. They are exceptionally wary and dive rapidly into deep water if threatened or approached by any potential predator. Hatchlings require water less than about one foot in depth with adjacent dense submergent or emergent vegetation for refuge (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Southwestern pond turtles use

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-30 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources terrestrial habitat for oviposition, basking, and overland dispersal. South-facing unforested grassy to sparsely brushy slopes with clay or sandy substrate are favored oviposition habitat. Turtle populations in very mild climates may be active year-round in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats (Holland 1994).

Mating typically occurs March through August depending on local conditions. Southwestern pond turtles reach reproductive maturity between 7 and 11 years of age, and are presumed to be long-lived (to at least 42 years of age [Holland 1994]).

Southwestern pond turtles are omnivorous. Food consists mostly of small to moderate-sized aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates (especially insects and crustaceans), but vegetation and carrion may also be consumed (Holland 1994). Hatchlings prey mainly on nekton (zooplankton) and the larvae of small aquatic insects and other invertebrates. Reproductive pond turtle populations are absent from waterways that do not support a diverse nekton and invertebrate macrofauna.

Portions of the streams and associated terrestrial habitat within the North Coast watersheds may provide adequate breeding, aquatic, and wintering habitat for western pond turtles, particularly because high quality California red-legged frog spawning habitat often also supports substantial pond turtle populations. However, the North Coast creek surveys recorded pond turtles only from Wilder Creek and single occurrences from isolated ponds in the Yellow Bank and Moore Creek watersheds. During the KES (2001) habitat assessment of Wilder Creek State Park, only one turtle was observed (in the Wilder Creek Lagoon) and one empty shell was found in the Wilder Creek restoration reach. The reasons for pond turtle scarcity from seemingly high quality aquatic habitat in the North Coast watersheds are unknown, but may include a shortage of suitable egg deposition sites in associated terrestrial habitat, scarcity of nekton forage for juvenile turtles, absence of sufficient cover at aquatic habitats, or suboptimal still water temperature regimes.

Southwestern Pond Turtle Occurrence in the Project Area Southwestern pond turtles are confirmed only from Wilder Creek on the North Coast streams. Suitable aquatic habitat seemingly exists sporadically along Laguna, Yellow Bank, and Majors creeks, but turtles were not observed during the habitat surveys along those creeks. The reasons for pond turtle scarcity from seemingly high quality aquatic habitat in the North Coast watersheds are unknown, but may include a shortage of suitable egg deposition sites in associated terrestrial habitat, scarcity of nekton forage for juvenile turtles, absence of sufficient cover at aquatic habitats, or suboptimal still water temperature regimes.

Liddell Reach Southwestern pond turtles were not observed during the 2003 Liddell Creek survey (ENTRIX 2004). Liddell Creek pools that were rated as marginal for California red-legged frogs in the anadromous reach (because of lack of appropriate water depth and basking sites) were marginal to unsuitable for turtles for the same reasons and because suitable nearby terrestrial oviposition sites were absent. Appropriate accessible terrestrial and aquatic basking sites for turtles were also scarce in the non- anadromous reach (from RM 1.29 to the diversion dam).

Laguna Reach The coastal lagoon and associated terrestrial habitat to the south appears to have the greatest potential basking, foraging, and oviposition habitat for southwestern pond turtles in Laguna Creek (ENTRIX 2002b). In the past, southwestern pond turtles have been observed in the lagoon. Elsewhere in the anadromous reach (to 1.43 miles upstream of the lagoon) some pools appeared to be deep enough for basking and foraging, but suitable terrestrial oviposition habitat is not apparent. Potential foraging and basking sites are also absent from the nonanadromous reach (RM 1.43 to the diversion dam). The

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-31 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Laguna Creek diversion pond is too shallow and unvegetated to support pond turtle foraging and basking (ENTRIX 2002b).

Majors Reach The Majors Creek Lagoon (discussed above) is not suitable for southwestern pond turtles, but pools and backwaters along the anadromous reaches of Majors Creek were rated moderate to favorable aquatic habitat for pond turtles because the sites have open canopy, complex cover, abundant forage, and appropriate depth. The diversion pond seems to offer high quality cover and basking and foraging habitat for pond turtles (ENTRIX 2002b). However, winter and spring operations for sediment management associated with runoff from storm events can cause the diversion pond to fluctuate from one to ten feet in depth, which may destabilize the aquatic habitat enough to discourage pond turtle colonization and recolonization.

NCP Reach The NCP crosses the following streams that provide habitat for Southwestern pond turtles; Moore Creek and Wilder Creek.

Scaroni Creek may provide habitat for southwestern pond turtle in the two agricultural ponds on the creek. These ponds are located well downstream of the point where the City’s NCP pipeline crosses.

Moore Creek provides potential habitat for the southwestern pond turtle. Bryan Mori recorded a single occurrence in an ephemeral pond near the headwaters of Moore Creek (CDFG 2003a). Moore Creek Preserve includes substantial meadow habitat that offers many potential oviposition sites. Ephemeral ponds similar to that sampled by Mori can function as “nursery” habitat for western pond turtles if water remains through June and alternate foraging habitat exists within about 1,640 ft (Barry pers. comm. 2004), so the Moore Creek headwaters ponds may be important in the local natural history of the western pond turtle.

Wilder Creek provides potential habitat for the pond turtles. During the KES (2001) habitat assessment of Wilder Creek State Park, one turtle was observed (in the Wilder Creek Lagoon) and one empty shell was found in the Wilder Creek restoration reach. For Wilder Creek, the principal data gap is that terrestrial habitat use and existing or potential oviposition sites are undocumented.

9.3.4 Potential Biological Impacts

9.3.4.1 Thresholds of Significance

Impacts to biological resources found in the Project area were evaluated by determining the sensitivity, significance, or rarity of each resource that could be adversely affected by the proposed projects associated with the various alternatives and by using thresholds of significance to determine whether the change in environmental conditions constitutes a significant impact. The significance threshold may be different for each habitat or species.

In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on biological resources if it were to result in any of the following:

• Adversely affect a population of a threatened, endangered, regulated, or otherwise designated sensitive or special-status species, including CNPS List 1B species

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-32 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

• Substantial adverse effect on a species, natural community, or habitat that is specifically recognized as biologically significant in local, state, or federal policies, statutes, or regulations

• Substantial adverse effect on a species, natural community, or habitat that is recognized for scientific, recreational, ecological, or commercial importance

• Any impedance of fish or wildlife migration routes for a period that would significantly disrupt that migration

• An alteration or destruction of habitat that would prevent reestablishment of biological communities that inhabited the area prior to the proposed projects

• Extensive alteration or loss of biological communities in high-quality habitat for longer than one year

• Impacts to unique communities or communities of limited distribution within the Project area

California Native Plant Society. Vascular plants listed as rare or endangered by the CNPS (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), but have no designated status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation, are defined as follows:

• List 1A, plants believed to be extinct

• List 1B, plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

• List 2, plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but that are more numerous elsewhere

• List 3, plants that we need more information, a review list

• List 4, plants of limited distribution, a watch list

In general, plants appearing on CNPS List 1B are considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria, and effects on these species would be considered significant in this EIR.

9.3.4.2 Impact Methodology

Potential impacts from the proposed Project described in Chapter 2 were assessed by analyzing the components of each Project alternative against known locations of listed species and by resorting to studies conducted by regional qualified biologists in the Project area. The proposed alternatives were evaluated against the baseline conditions presented in Chapter 2 of the EIR.

9.4 Summary of Potential Impacts

There are three key resource categories within the biological resources section. Botanical and wetland resources include sensitive plant species, vegetation communities, and wetlands. Terrestrial Wildlife Resources include all terrestrial animals (i.e., birds, mammals, and invertebrates) and Aquatic Resources include those animals that inhabit water bodies (i.e., creeks, ponds, and lagoons). Reptiles

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-33 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources and amphibians are also included in the aquatic resources section because they are typically found in close proximity to water bodies and are impacted by actions affecting the water bodies.

This section presents general impacts that are anticipated to result from implementation of the proposed Project along a particular alignment. Because the Project would be constructed by reach over a 15 to 20 year period, biological resources along the proposed alignments may change from current conditions. Therefore, it is anticipated that, at a minimum, reconnaissance level surveys would be required to support the project-specific CEQA document that would be prepared for each reach prior to consultation. Where specific resource information has not been collected for a particular site or alignment, impacts must be considered potentially significant until such time as adequate surveys are completed. This primarily applies to sensitive plant and wetland resources, but also to Ohlone tiger beetle habitat and other resources where data gaps exist.

Additionally, potentially significant impacts could occur as a result of construction timing (summer vs. winter). While winter construction activities would be avoided in potentially sensitive habitat areas, there would likely be some winter construction. Such construction would likely occur in high- use recreation areas to minimize project construction impacts on areas with high summer visitor usage. As a result, this construction could require a greater on-site presence by City staff to monitor construction activities.

The impact analysis has been divided into two broad categories: Construction and O&M Activities. It is currently anticipated that by either avoiding the resource through re-alignment or alternative pipeline installation techniques (e.g., trenching, directional drilling, etc.) or incorporation of the appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures outlined below, that the majority of these impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels.

Below, is a summary of several minimization measures that would potentially apply to all biological resource areas:

• Implement additional measures that may be required as part of the CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB permits that would be obtained for the Project route.

• Retain qualified biologists and other qualified resource specialists, as necessary, to monitor construction activities on the project where sensitive resources have been identified.

• Conduct a biological resource education program for construction crews (before construction activities begin) and City maintenance staff.

• Store hazardous substances in staging areas located away from streams and other surface waters, and conduct refueling and vehicle maintenance at specified staging areas to reduce the potential for spills into water bodies.

• Stabilize exposed slopes and streambanks immediately following completion of installation activities and restore in a manner that encourages vegetation to re-establish to its pre-project or improved (e.g., plant native species) condition and reduces the effects of erosion on the drainage system.

9.4.1 Botanical Resources Special-status plant populations have been documented along portions of the Project route. Additionally, special-status plants for which marginal or suitable habitat exists, have been identified

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-34 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources for the Project route (Appendix C). Thus, the proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect botanical and wetland resources. Activities of the proposed Project that could affect special-status plant species, sensitive riparian habitat, and wetlands include:

• Clearing and grading for construction (i.e., plant and tree removal)

• Soil compaction due to repeated occupation of staging areas

• Potential erosion or wastewater discharge into sensitive resources

• On-going maintenance activities (e.g., mowing vegetation) that potentially impact resources along the Project route

9.4.1.1 Construction-Related Activities

Construction activities could result in the disturbance of special-status plants located within and adjacent to the Project route, potentially reducing local populations of these species. For some species, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant based on the distribution of the species, the narrow corridor of the pipeline route, and other factors (e.g., timing of installation may avoid the critical reproductive period for a species). For other species, the impact of construction activities could result in an impact on the local plant population.

The Project would avoid, wherever possible, direct and indirect effects on threatened, endangered, and candidate and other special-status plant (CNPS List 1B and CNPS List 2) species located during floristic surveys (Appendix C). Complete avoidance of some non-listed special-status plant populations may be considered unwarranted. These species include certain locally common or taxonomically uncertain species that are classified in the CNPS List 3/ federal species of concern and CNPS List 4 categories. The reconnaissance-level surveys conducted for the preliminary pipeline alignments considered in this PEIR were not sufficient to determine specifically where sensitive species inhabit the pipeline alignments and the current distribution might change over the 15 to 20 year Project implementation period. Impacts to sensitive plant species must be considered potentially significant for all alignments until such surveys have been completed.

Construction activities would temporarily disrupt vegetation communities along the chosen alignment. Such activities could also introduce or spread noxious weeds into currently uninfested areas, possibly resulting in the displacement of special-status plant species and degrading sensitive natural communities. Revegetation requirements and avoidance and minimization measures would reduce these impacts.

Construction activities could temporarily disturb riparian habitat at the diversions and stream crossings along the Project routes. However, to the extent practicable, most riparian areas could be avoided by using alternative pipeline installation techniques, such as directional drilling or by realigning the pipeline. Possible exceptions could include the diversion construction sites and locations where the pipe is installed in ditches along the shoulder of roadways, or if site conditions are unreasonable for drilling under intermittent or ephemeral streams. Erosion control procedures would be followed in all cases where there is the potential to impact riparian habitat.

Construction activities could also result in the removal or disturbance of woody riparian vegetation during the installation of the pipe across drainages that cannot be directionally bored. Only a few crossings may require in-channel work to suspend the pipeline across the channel or attach it to an

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-35 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources existing bridge. In cases where in-channel work is required, the removal of woody riparian vegetation would be avoided in areas that provide habitat for special-status species. Due to the limited number of crossings where in-channel work may be necessary and the limited nature of such work (i.e., installing piers), this impact is anticipated to be less than significant with the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.

The areas of waters of the United States and jurisdictional wetlands that would be disturbed would be limited to the minimum area necessary to successfully install the pipeline. Indirect impacts, such as sediment runoff from construction and damage from personnel and vehicle traffic, could affect wetlands within close proximity to the Project ROW. Wetlands could be avoided by rerouting the pipeline or using alternative pipeline installation techniques, such as directional drilling where feasible.

The proposed pipeline repair Project could affect heritage trees protected by municipal ordinances in the City of Santa Cruz, and could affect riparian habitat protected by county ordinances in Santa Cruz County. Impacts to heritage trees would be avoided by re-routing the pipeline whenever possible and where avoidance is infeasible, appropriate mitigation measures would be identified.

Construction along the riparian corridor of Majors and Laguna creeks may require removal of an unknown number of trees to allow the placement of bench cuts, equipment access, and pipeline placement. Tree removal exceeding three acres in total area would require the preparation of a timber harvest plan. It is anticipated that tree removal activities would be evaluated on a reach-specific basis as a final engineering design is developed and the permit applications are prepared. It is quite unlikely that any areas requiring tree removal would be three acres or greater in size.

Long-term visual impacts may occur as a result of tree removal activities and continued maintenance of the cleared ROW. Tree and ground cover removal could lead to increased soil erosion on steep slopes along Laguna and Majors creeks potentially impacting fish habitat. Appropriate erosion control measures would need to be incorporated into the construction activities and for the long-term maintenance of bench cuts along the ROW. These would be specified in the reach-specific SWPPP.

Avoidance of wetlands, riparian zones, and areas with sensitive plant species is the preferred alternative to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, where possible, wetlands and sensitive plant habitats should be avoided by re-routing the pipeline alignment or by using alternative pipeline installation techniques (such as directional drilling) where complete avoidance is not possible or feasible. Additional mitigation and minimization measures are summarized below that should result in a less-than-significant impact designation.

The following additional mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented, as needed:

• Conduct any additional surveys necessary (following agency approved sampling protocols) during the appropriate flowering periods for special-status plant species to identify plant populations in or adjacent to the Project route prior to construction.

• Establish and maintain exclusion zones around special-status plant populations during construction.

• Where construction must occur in close proximity to special-status plants, conduct construction activities when special-status plants are not flowering or fruiting.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-36 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

• Minimize disturbance in areas that support special-status plants by limiting ground disturbance and other activities to the smallest possible corridor.

• Conduct pre-construction wetland delineations for the pipeline route to determine the presence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands and appropriate mitigation measures would be developed in association with the USACE.

• Re-contour the ground surface to maintain pre-project wetland hydrology.

• Record the type of species and size of all trees to be removed within the boundaries of the City during construction, and identify all the trees that meet the criteria for heritage trees as provided in the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

• Obtain a permit for the removal of any heritage trees, prior to the start of construction, and mitigate for the removal of all heritage trees pursuant to the mitigation requirement chart adopted by the City Council resolution.

9.4.1.2 Operations and Maintenance-Related Activities

O&M activities for the NCS that might influence botanical resources include vegetation control at the diversions and periodic vegetation clearing/mowing along the pipeline ROW. Vegetation maintenance of the diversions is not expected to adversely impact special-status plant species. The City does mow portions of the pipeline route at least annually to maintain an 8-foot-wide swath immediately adjacent to the pipeline. Mowing the pipeline route allows SCWD personnel to travel the pipeline route more easily by foot or by vehicle to check the system for leaks or other damage. The following avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented where possible to reduce the potential for impacts to botanical resources:

• Re-route the pipeline, during replacement, around established areas containing special-status plant species

• Document and/or demarcate areas along the pipeline route that are known to support special- status plants and educate maintenance personnel about those locations and species

• Conduct maintenance activities when native and/or special-status plant species are not flowering or fruiting

• Time mowing activities in grassland areas to remove or minimize the introduction and proliferation of exotic plant species in the ROW

• Maintain/clean mowing equipment to minimize the introduction and proliferation of exotic plant species in the ROW

• Maintain a minimum 10-foot riparian buffer where feasible at stream crossings and where the ROW runs parallel to a watercourse

• To minimize fire hazards, avoid mowing activities during dry summer months .

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-37 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

9.4.2 Wildlife Resources The proposed Project has the potential to adversely affect terrestrial wildlife resources. Activities of the proposed Project that could affect terrestrial wildlife resources include the following.

• Clearing and grading for construction

• Repeated occupation of staging areas

• Noise produced by construction equipment and activities

• Potential erosion or waste water discharge into sensitive resources

• On-going maintenance activities that potentially impact threatened and endangered wildlife resources adjacent to the Project site would be addressed in the HCP that is currently in development to address a broad range of City activities

Special-status birds and invertebrate species have been documented in portions of the Project area (Appendix C). In addition, potentially suitable habitat exists for other special-status terrestrial species. Operations and construction and maintenance activities could result in direct and indirect impacts to individuals, communities and habitats of special-status terrestrial species located within or adjacent to the Project route. Direct impacts include mortality due to crushing or trampling of individuals or sublethal effects associated with causing a species to abandon preferred habitat. Indirect effects may include causing a substantial change in the availability of prey, reducing available foraging or nesting habitat or substantially changing the usability of a required habitat.

9.4.2.1 Construction-Related Activities

The potential for the Project to result in adverse effects would be dependent upon the alignments selected, the methods of construction, and the time at which the construction is conducted. It is very likely that the presence and distribution of terrestrial wildlife would change over the proposed 15 to 20-year project implementation period. Therefore, it is not practical to discuss biological impacts in detail at this level of evaluation.

The information acquired to-date through screening-level reconnaissance surveys and document review indicate that special-status terrestrial species are present in the Project area. These species are identified in the reach-specific discussions below.

For some species, impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant based on the distribution of the species, the narrow construction corridor of the pipeline route, and other factors (e.g., timing of installation may avoid the critical breeding period for these species). For other species, the impact of construction activities could result in an impact on the local population. Potential nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, marbled murrelet, and black swift is located within or near portions of the Project route. Nesting habitat could be directly impacted by the removal of trees, or indirectly by human disturbances from construction activities, that could cause nest abandonment and death of young, or loss of reproductive potentially active nests located near the Project routes. As with botanical resources, avoidance of areas with sensitive terrestrial species is preferred. Therefore, where possible, sensitive habitat should be avoided by re-routing the pipeline. Where re-routing the pipeline is not feasible, applicable mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures would be developed.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-38 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

The following construction avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented, as needed:

• If warranted, conduct any additional surveys prior to construction;

• Establish and maintain no-disturbance buffers around active nests or territories during the breeding season;

• To protect migratory birds, as required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there shall be no removal of woody riparian vegetation during the recognized migratory period within the Project area typically from March 1 to August 1; and

• Limit ground disturbance and other activities to the smallest possible corridor.

9.4.2.2 Operations and Maintenance-Related Activities

O&M activities at the diversion facilities are not expected to have an adverse impact on terrestrial wildlife species. These activities are limited to vegetation management and periodic maintenance of equipment. Mowing the pipeline route may adversely impact some special-status wildlife species through disturbance.

9.4.3 Aquatic Resources The proposed Project has the potential to impact aquatic resources where the pipeline runs adjacent to or crosses water bodies. The majority of the potential impacts to aquatic resources would occur during the construction phase of the Project, although minor impacts from on-going operations and maintenance activities could occur. Impacts associated with O&M activities would be expected to occur at or below the levels under existing system conditions. The proposed Project would require construction activities in Laguna, and Majors creeks and would traverse a number of streams throughout the Project area that provide habitat for native species including special-status fish (i.e., steelhead), amphibians (i.e., California red-legged frog), and reptiles (i.e., southwestern pond turtle) (Figures 7a through 7c). The reconnaissance-level surveys conducted by ENTRIX in 2002 and previous survey reports (KES 2001; ENTRIX 2002b) identified suitable habitat for these special- status species at several stream crossings in the Project area (Table 7).

Construction activities that could affect aquatic resources include:

• Clearing (i.e., vegetation, soil, debris, etc.), grading and bench cuts for construction

• Equipment and personnel access to creeks and riparian zones

• Stormwater runoff containing contaminants

• Hazardous materials spills into water bodies

• Sediment runoff into streams and creeks from exposed construction sites and frac-outs associated with directional drilling

• Temporarily dewatering the creek bed

9.4.3.1 Construction-Related Activities

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-39 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Construction activities in reaches supporting aquatic species could disturb or destroy occupied habitat and temporarily displace animals (indirect impacts) or cause harm to individuals during work at a diversion site, stream crossing, or in the riparian zone (direct impacts).

Increased sediment loading to streams from construction activities would impact the overall health of aquatic systems. Sediment loading can be caused by any construction activities that increases erosion including vegetation removal, bench cuts, trenching, work on erosive slopes, and directional drilling. Sediment loading can decrease the quantity and quality of pool habitat and increase the embeddedness of cobble and gravel substrate. For aquatic resources, including steelhead, California red-legged frogs, and southwestern pond turtles, pool habitat is important for successful rearing.

Increased embeddedness decreases the food supply for aquatic species. Many aquatic species feed on aquatic invertebrates, which are produced in the largest numbers in the interstitial spaces between gravels and cobbles in riffle habitats. Sedimentation of the stream channel can result in the filling of these spaces and a decrease in food production. Increased embeddedness of stream gravels also decreases the suitability of these gravels for steelhead spawning. Sediment loading can also decrease water quality (i.e., increase turbidity) which can impact aquatic resources dependent on sight feeding (e.g., steelhead). Increased erosion to the stream channel and in-channel activities may result in the mobilization of sediment, which could accumulate and impair steelhead migration during lower flow conditions.

Although rare, directional drilling can result in frac-outs (bentonite seeps) into surface waters. Bentonite is a non-toxic clay-based water mixture used to lubricate the boring mechanism. Although non-toxic, seeps of bentonite into streams can result in temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation that could affect aquatic habitat. This bentonite clay lubricant could also injure fish directly by clogging gills. If drilling fluid is released into a stream it may adversely affect aquatic habitat by sealing part of the streambed, creating sterile conditions. Mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures discussed below would reduce these potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

The proposed Project would also disturb some riparian vegetation. Vegetation removal from the low flow channel or along the banks of the creek would remove potential cover and may lead to exposure and enhanced predation. Vegetation removal may also reduce the available foraging habitat potentially reducing the number of frogs and turtles that could be supported by that location on the creek. Minimization measures to preserve riparian vegetation, other than avoidance, are described in the Botanical Resources section. In some areas where the riparian canopy is dense, vegetation removal may increase the basking areas for California red-legged frogs and potential foraging areas for steelhead.

Hazardous materials associated with the proposed Project would be limited to those substances typically associated with construction equipment, such as gasoline and diesel fuels, engine oil, hydraulic fluids, and concrete. An accidental spill of these substances could contaminate streams and adversely affect fish or their habitat. With the implementation of construction-related BMPs outlined later in Section 9.5, the potential for the transport of hazardous materials and wastes, erosion, and sedimentation to receiving waters would be minimized.

In addition, the impacts discussed above focussed on construction activities at the Project site for the diversions, stream crossings, and associated adjacent habitat. Sediment-related impacts can occur downstream of the work site; the distance downstream depends on creek-specific sediment transport mechanisms and flow levels. While it is unlikely, given the minimization and avoidance measures discussed in this section, sediment levels and turbidity may be increased as far down as the lagoons in

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-40 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources some creeks. Tidewater gobies are known to inhabit the lagoons of Laguna, Baldwin, Wilder, and Moore creeks. Increased sedimentation to the lagoons and higher turbidity levels could impact tidewater goby habitat, however short-term increases in turbidity are anticipated to be minor and less than significant.

To avoid the impacts described above, the City should re-route the pipeline to eliminate stream crossings, bore under (directional drilling), or suspend the pipeline over sensitive water bodies wherever possible. In addition, wherever feasible, the City should avoid construction on steep hillsides adjacent to water bodies where runoff from construction sites to aquatic habitat is more likely to occur. Finally, staging areas should be located away from aquatic habitat to minimize potential erosion and runoff from repeated use of these areas. Avoidance is the most effective method of reducing impacts to aquatic resources.

Construction activities would be constrained seasonally in the vicinity of aquatic habitats to minimize potential impacts on sensitive life stage activities. For example, instream construction activities of the diversions and pipeline stream crossings would be allowed between June 1 and October 31, to avoid impacts during the steelhead spawning season.

9.4.3.2 Operations and Maintenance-Related Activities

Permanent impacts related to ongoing operations and maintenance activities would be limited to vegetation maintenance. The vegetation in an approximately 8-foot-wide swath along the pipeline ROW would be periodically mowed or trimmed. These activities could impact aquatic resources directly should the maintenance crews or equipment harm individuals in the riparian zones located at crossings along the ROW or destroy a small amount of riparian habitat which may be used by aquatic species. Since these impacts would occur relatively infrequently and on a small spatial scale, these impacts are considered less than significant. These impacts would occur along all reaches where crossings are present, and therefore are not discussed in the reach-specific section (refer to Section 9.5).

General Mitigation, Avoidance and Minimization Measures

The mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures listed below would be implemented, if needed, to further reduce the potential impacts to aquatic resources during construction. Additional measures applicable to multiple biological resource areas are listed at the end of this section.

• Avoid construction in wetted channels during the migration and spawning seasons in areas that have special-status fish species

• In perennial streams, construct stream crossings during the low flow season (June 15 through October 15)

• In ephemeral streams, construct stream crossings when there is no flow

• A qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the presence/absence of listed species at the stream crossings, establish exclusion zones by flagging the work area, relocate individual animals if necessary, and monitor construction activities

• Implement sediment/erosion control BMPs when constructing at or near stream crossings and working in and adjacent to riparian corridors

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-41 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

• Minimize surface disturbance and vegetation removal to the extent feasible during construction activities in order to reduce the area of disturbed soils that could be eroded during winter months

• Place staging/storage areas for equipment and materials to outside of the stream channel

• Maintain equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated within or adjacent to the channels regularly to prevent leaks of materials that if introduced to the water could be deleterious to aquatic life

• Contain and clean up spills immediately and notify the State Office of Emergency Services and/or other appropriate State and Federal agencies when a hazardous spill occurs

• Monitor mud circulation during directional drilling in an attempt to prevent instream frac-outs and backfill the pilot hole with native material after burying the pipeline

• After in-channel work, return the streambed to its approximate pre-construction profile to ensure that flow patterns are unaltered and re-contour the ROW and restore original grades and drainage channels to minimize runoff

• Implement BMPs to prevent bentonite seeps into flowing creeks (dewater construction section if necessary) and restore the creek bed should such seeps occur

• Limit removal of vegetation to the minimum area necessary in the existing ROW

• Implement worker education and well-defined operational procedures, with the cooperation of a qualified biologist, to avoid and minimize the take of special-status species during construction and/or stream maintenance activities

9.5 Reach-specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the specific project reaches within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. Potential impacts to Federal- or state-listed threatened or endangered species associated with operations and maintenance of the NCS is also being addressed in a Section 10 HCP. The City of Santa Cruz has already initiated the preparation of the HCP.

There are no construction-related impacts expected for Alternative 1 (No Project Alternative) of the diversion structure and pipeline reaches, as no construction activities are planned. For this reason, this alternative is not discussed at each site. In addition, existing pipeline O&M activities for all reaches include vegetation control, monitoring, and emergency repair response activities. Considering the age and design of the existing pipelines/structures, emergency repair response activities (i.e., break or failure) would continue to increase in frequency and duration. The impacts of these repairs would vary with site, season, and repair extent and requirements, and range from minimal (a small pipeline failure during the summer in accessible redwood forest habitat) to extensive (pipeline fails completely at a stream crossing where anadromous fish or California red-legged frogs reside). Possible impacts include direct take of a special-status species and/or their habitat, and erosion and water quality impairment to aquatic habitat. Under Alternative 1 for all pipeline reaches, no mitigation measures exist other than replacing or updating the structure/piping, therefore, the impact is not further discussed for each specific site below.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-42 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Under the proposed pipeline alternatives, the O&M activities are not expected to change significantly from existing O&M activities. It is anticipated that vegetation would be controlled in the pipeline ROW using a riding mower where feasible. BMPs would be developed in concert with CDFG, USFWS, and NOAA Fisheries and implemented to reduce the level of impact such as where slopes are too steep, or the ROW is physically too narrow to mow, vegetation would be thinned or controlled using hand tools. In shrub/scrub and forested areas, it is anticipated that the understory would be pruned with hand tools. For all the proposed pipeline alternatives, the above BMPs would reduce this potential impact from O&M activities on aquatic and botanical/wetland species to a level that is less than significant. For terrestrial species, vegetation control activities could directly cause injury or mortality of individuals including special-status species located within or adjacent to the proposed pipeline alternatives or disturb preferred habitat. Vegetation control activities could indirectly cause a substantial change in the availability of prey or reduce quality habitat for those species. The potential for the project to result in adverse effects would ultimately depend upon the alignments selected and the time at which maintenance is conducted. It is very likely that the presence and distribution of terrestrial wildlife would change over the proposed 15 to 20-year project implementation period. Because this potential impact is the same for each alternative in all reaches, it is not discussed further for each specific site below.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion would be labeled Biological Impact R-1, Biological Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.). Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it would be labeled Biological Impact 1-1, Biological Impact 1-2, etc.

9.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure

9.5.1.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Impact R-1: Current diversion structure O&M activities could impact species within the diversion pond and downstream of the diversion.

Aquatic Resources From an operational standpoint, the Reggiardo diversion structure does not include any mechanical valves and collects water passively. Sediment removal is the only maintenance activity at this facility. The periodic excavation of accumulated sediment, depending on timing and extent of the work, may impact steelhead and coho (potentially in the future) in the anadromous reach; and California red- legged frogs and resident rainbow trout inhabiting Laguna Creek downstream of the diversion and in the diversion pond. This activity has little if any impact, but inadvertent discharge of lubricants and hydraulic fluid into the creek is possible during the use of heavy equipment for sediment removal.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a & h (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-43 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

9.5.1.2 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

While repair work to the Reggiardo diversion structure is not part of this project, the activity may be evaluated in the future under project-specific CEQA analysis or in an addendum to the Final PEIR. Since no structural modifications to the Reggiardo Creek Diversion are proposed at this time, no mitigation measures would be required. However, should the City develop feasible repair alternatives for the Reggiardo Diversion, then construction impacts would be covered under the new CEQA document.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Impact R-2: Same as Alternative 1 – See above.

Sediment removal maintenance may be expanded on a one-time basis to replace the intake box located on the upstream side of the diversion dam at the left bank (facing downstream). The intake box is currently buried and may be damaged.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a & h (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

9.5.2 Laguna Diversion Structure

9.5.2.1 Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact L-1: Current O&M activities could impact species within the Diversion Pond and Downstream of the Diversion.

Under existing operations, the diversion operates year round whereby a gate valve is opened/closed at the inlet of the pipeline. During periods of higher instream flows, when turbidity exceeds 25 NTU, the City stops diverting surface flow which allows flow to spill over the diversion dam. The flow is then allowed to spill over the diversion dam and proceed downstream. Much of the stormflow sediment load is dropped in the impoundment. The flow relief valve in the lower face of the dam is opened during the receding flows of the storm event to allow the downstream transport of the accumulated sediment. Surface water diversion is resumed when turbidity drops to 25 NTU or less. During the summer months, the City diverts stream flow. Additional surface water is contributed to the Laguna Creek pipeline via the Reggiardo Creek diversion and pipeline (at the Laguna Diversion impoundment) and the Liddell Spring intake and pipeline (at the Laguna Pipeline Y).

O&M on the Laguna Creek diversion structure currently involves the following five activities: water diversion, intake screens, bypass flow, sediment management, and equipment and pump maintenance. The existing Laguna Creek diversion facility is structured to check surface water within the stream to a level whereby water can be diverted through an intake structure, into a transmission main, and ultimately to the City’s treatment plant. The existing concrete and limestone weir creates an impoundment to submerge the pipeline intakes for the conveyance system. The impoundment behind the Laguna Creek diversion dam does fill with sediment (primarily consisting of rocks and pebbles) following storm events. The digging out of materials by hand may occur as frequently as annually,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-44 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources depending on storm conditions, or may be required more frequently as under emergency situations to keep intakes clear. The City has dredged the diversion pond twice since 1996.

Aquatic Resources Continued operation of the existing facility would likely result in the following impacts:

L-1a – The diversion structure currently impedes downstream sediment transport, so the City has to remove the settled material occasionally causing changes to habitat conditions in the diversion impoundment and temporarily disturbing the surrounding area.

L-1b – The existing screen on the diversion intake prevents debris entrainment but is not structured to protect juvenile resident trout or other small aquatic organisms so impingement or entrainment could occur.

L-1c – Equipment maintenance currently involves periodic lubrication and servicing. This activity has little if any impact, but inadvertent discharge of lubricants and solvents into the creek is possible.

Mitigation Measures: None proposed. These potential impacts constitute baseline conditions at the Laguna Diversion, as such no mitigation measures are proposed.

9.5.2.2 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact L-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could temporarily impact certain species and their habitat.

Most of the construction and repair work would occur in the stream channel. Construction of the diversion modifications would involve a cofferdam and a temporary bypass system, dewatering, earthwork, reinforced concrete demolition and construction, metal work fabrication and installation, stone protection, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical services. The primary modifications to the existing diversion facility include:

• Installation of a pneumatic spillway gate and weir and intake modifications;

• Compressors, controls, and instrumentation;

• Installation of self-cleaning screen panels;

• Miscellaneous site work improvements.

Aquatic Resources Construction of the proposed modifications would likely result in the following impacts:

L-2a – Dewatering the impoundment and stream habitat immediately upstream of the impoundment would displace fish and other aquatic organisms present. These species may include California red- legged frogs or other frog species and turtles. The stream flow may be bypassed around the construction zone and/or diverted into the Laguna pipeline. Placement of the coffer dam may trap and kill some aquatic species.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-45 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

L-2b – The proposed dam and bank modifications would generate sediment and construction debris. Appropriate steps would be taken to prevent the release of sediment, soil or construction-related materials (e.g., cement) to the stream channel.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, d, e, f, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources Implementation of the proposed Project requires construction on the east bank (left bank looking downstream) in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam and the installation of a cofferdam immediately upstream of the diversion impoundment.

L-2c – The construction of the proposed modifications and installation and removal of the cofferdam and stream bypass could temporarily disturb the riparian vegetation present on the east bank.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, and e (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources Implementation of the proposed Project requires construction in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam.

L-2d – The construction of the proposed modifications could temporarily disturb nesting habitat for special-status species such as the Cooper’s hawks and other migratory bird species utilizing potential habitat at the Laguna Diversion. No permanent loss or disturbance of potential nesting habitat is expected to occur.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, and d (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact L-3: O&M of the proposed Project facilities could temporarily impact certain species and their habitat.

Assuming all proposed modifications are implemented, changes in operation and maintenance activities would be relatively minor and are not expected to vary significantly from existing activities. The greatest advantage of the modified facility is the automatic operation of the intake and spillway gates relative to inflow and turbidity of streamflow. When turbidity exceeds the desired limit, the spillway gate would lower closing the intake gate and vice-versa. This operating sequence provides for bedload and suspended sediment passage at the diversion during peak flow so that the intake remains clear and sediment transport is not hindered by the diversion. Operation and maintenance of the new facilities would include the following:

• Weekly or automated cleaning of debris/fish screens;

• Weekly inspection of turbidity meters and level transducers;

• Weekly inspection and annual maintenance of spillway gates;

• Weekly inspection and periodic maintenance of air compressors.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-46 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Aquatic Resources Although the amount and timing of surface water diverted would not change, the following changes would occur as a result of the modifications to the diversion structure.

L-3a – The proposed changes to the diversion spillway would modify the shape and depth of the impoundment, because sediment would permanently accumulate to the invert of the spillway gate, 5 feet below the dam crest. The resulting pool would be approximately 5 feet deep and a minimum of 9 feet wide when the spillway gate is closed. This would be somewhat smaller and it would be shallower than the maximum pool achievable under current conditions. The impoundment area has in some years been suitable habitat for special-status species such as California red-legged frogs and southwestern pond turtles and for other aquatic species such as native fish, frogs, and toads. The proposed changes may result in a small reduction in available foraging habitat for these species. This approach could result in a somewhat smaller but more stable impoundment, and would eliminate the need for periodic dredging to remove accumulated sediment. No mitigation measures are proposed for this potential impact.

L-3b – The diversion spillway gate and intake screen configuration was designed to minimize the potential for impingement of fish and aquatic organisms on the intake screens even when the spillway gate is closed and there is no sweeping flow past the screens. Under these conditions the screens are designed to operate at a low approach velocity of 0.09 feet per second, which is well below the swimming capability of most fish and amphibians. Therefore, the impoundment must have sufficient width that fish and amphibians that move downstream to the diversion can swim away from the screens to refuge habitat within the impoundment. During final design for the diversion modifications appropriate modeling would need to be conducted to determine whether a 9-foot-wide spillway gate provides sufficient pool width to provide refuge habitat from the screen approach velocity.

L-3c – The proposed modifications would allow for a more natural passage of sediment load during winter storms. Should the creek transport fine-grained sediment that has accumulated in the reaches below the diversion downstream to the anadromous reach, this could have a short-term adverse impact on the quality and availability of spawning habitat. The risk and duration of this impact is unknown and would be dependent upon the magnitude of the runoff events that occur in the years following construction and the release of fine-grained sediment to the creek from upper watershed sediment sources. Because the Laguna Creek sediment load is predominantly cobble and gravel, this potential adverse effect is not expected to be significant. In the long-term, the modification to the diversion is expected to improve habitat conditions in the reaches below the diversion. No mitigation measures are proposed for this potential effect.

Mitigation Measures: None proposed.

9.5.3 Majors Diversion Structure

9.5.3.1 Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact M-1: Current O&M activities could impact Species within the Diversion Pond and Downstream of the Diversion.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-47 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Under current operations, during storm events, as turbidity rises above 25 NTU the diversion is shut off and the entire stream flow passes over the dam. As turbidity drops below 25 NTU, the diversion is turned back on and surface water diversions resume.

O&M on the Majors Creek diversion structure involves the same five activities as conducted on the Laguna Creek diversion. Similar to diversion operations on Laguna Creek, the Majors Creek diversion facility has a set of control valves in the dam face to assist in sediment management during storm events. During periods of higher instream flows, when turbidity exceeds 25 NTU, the City stops diverting surface flow which then is allowed to spill over the diversion dam and proceed downstream. The lower valve is manually opened soon after peak storm flows with the attempt to mimic the natural hydrograph as much as possible with flow release timed to the receding limb of the storm event flow.

Aquatic Resources M-1a – The diversion structure currently impedes downstream sediment transport. The sediment load in Majors Creek consists predominantly of sand released from the Santa Margarita sandstone formation located in the upper watershed. The stream carries very little cobble and gravel. Under current operations, following the peak flow for a storm runoff event, a City employee travels to the diversion site to open the bypass valve in the bottom of the dam face. This allows the accumulated sediment to exit the diversion impoundment and be flushed downstream on the receding limb of the hydrograph. When this activity occurs too late during a storm runoff event or the runoff event is not sufficient to transport the sediment load, it may accumulate in the reach immediately below the diversion and may accumulate in the diversion impoundment. When this occurs, the City has to use heavy equipment to remove settled material (i.e., predominantly sand and large woody debris) from the impoundment, which could disturb the surrounding area. Direct impacts to California red-legged frogs, other frog species, or resident fish could occur if the maintenance crews or equipment harm individuals in or adjacent to the impoundment during maintenance activities.

M-1b – The existing screen on the diversion intake prevents debris entrainment but is not structured to protect juvenile resident trout or other aquatic organisms from possible entrainment.

M-1c – Equipment maintenance currently involves periodic lubrication and servicing. This activity has little if any impact, but inadvertent discharge of lubricants and solvents into the creek is possible.

These potential impacts constitute baseline conditions at the Majors Creek Diversion. As such no mitigation measures are proposed.

9.5.3.2 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact M-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could temporarily impact certain species and their habitat.

Most of the construction and repair work would occur in the stream channel at the current diversion site. Construction of the diversion modifications would involve a cofferdam and a temporary bypass system, dewatering, earthwork, reinforced concrete demolition and construction, metal work fabrication and installation, stone protection, and miscellaneous electrical and mechanical services which could impact local habitat. Earthwork, involving fill or spoil operations, would be confined to the localized area, and habitat disturbance would be no greater than that which would be typically

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-48 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources administered during annual maintenance activities. The primary modifications to the existing diversion facility include:

• Pneumatic spillway gate and weir modifications;

• Compressors, controls, and instrumentation;

• Install self-cleaning intake screen panels;

• Miscellaneous site work improvements.

Aquatic Resources Implementation of the proposed Project requires construction in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam and includes the installation of a pneumatic gate, installation of bank protection on the east bank immediately below the pneumatic gate, replacement of the intake screens with a self- cleaning screen system, installation of automatic flow and turbidity meters, and shoring the west end of the diversion dam. These activities could result in the following impacts.

M-2a – Dewatering the impoundment and stream habitat immediately upstream of the impoundment would displace or injure fish and other aquatic organisms present. These species may include California red-legged frogs, rainbow trout, turtles, and other frog species. The stream flow may be bypassed around the construction zone and/or diverted into the Majors pipeline.

M-2b – The proposed dam and bank modifications would generate sediment and construction debris. Appropriate steps would be taken to prevent the release of sediment, soil or construction-related materials (e.g., cement) to the stream channel.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, d, e, f, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources Implementation of the proposed Project requires construction in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam and installation and removal of a cofferdam and stream bypass.

M-2c – The construction of the proposed modifications could temporarily disturb the riparian vegetation present in the work area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, and e (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources Implementation of the proposed Project requires construction in the immediate vicinity of the diversion dam.

M-2d – Construction of the proposed modifications could temporarily disturb nesting habitat for special status species such as the Cooper’s hawk or other migratory bird species if utilizing potential habitat at the Laguna Diversion. No permanent loss or disturbance of potential nesting habitat is expected to occur.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-49 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, and d (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact M-3: Operations and Maintenance of the proposed Project facilities could temporarily impact certain species and their habitat.

• Weekly or automatic cleaning of debris/fish screens;

• Weekly inspection of turbidity meters and level transducers;

• Weekly inspection and periodic maintenance of spillway gates;

• Weekly inspection and periodic maintenance of air compressors.

The greatest advantage of the modified facility is the automatic operation of the intake and spillway gates relative to changes in stream flow and turbidity. When turbidity exceeds the desired limit, the spillway gate would lower closing the intake gate and vice-versa. This operating sequence provides for bedload passage at the diversion during peak flow so that the intake remains clear and sediment transport is not hindered by the diversion.

Aquatic Resources Although surface water diversion operations would not change, the following changes would occur as a result of the modifications to the diversion structure.

M-3a – The proposed changes to the diversion spillway would modify the shape and depth of the impoundment, because sediment would permanently accumulate to the invert of the spillway gate, 5 feet below the dam crest. The resulting pool would be approximately 5 feet deep and a minimum of 9 feet wide when the spillway gate is closed. This would be somewhat smaller and it would be shallower than the maximum pool achievable under current conditions. The impoundment area has in some years been suitable habitat for California red-legged frogs and southwestern pond turtles. The proposed changes may result in a small reduction in available foraging habitat for these species. This approach could result in a somewhat smaller, but more stable impoundment, and would eliminate the need for periodic dredging to remove accumulated sediment. No mitigation measures are proposed for this potential impact.

M-3b – The diversion spillway gate and intake screen configuration was designed to minimize the potential for impingement of fish and aquatic organisms on the intake screens even when the spillway gate is closed and there is no sweeping flow past the screens. Under these conditions the screens are designed to operate at a low approach velocity of 0.09 feet per second, which is well below the swimming capability of most fish and amphibians. Therefore, the impoundment must have sufficient width that fish and amphibians that move downstream to the diversion can swim away from the screens to some refuge habitat within the impoundment. During final design for the diversion modifications appropriate modeling would need to be conducted to determine whether a 9-foot-wide spillway gate provides sufficient pool width to provide refuge habitat from the screen approach velocity.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-50 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

M-3c – The proposed modifications would improve the transport of the substantial sediment burden in the non-anadromous reach downstream of the Majors Creek Diversion. It is anticipated that this existing sediment burden and additional sediment load from the upper watershed would move downstream during storm water runoff events. Depending upon the magnitude, frequency and timing of the storm events that occur in the years following the diversion repair the sediment load would be flushed from the stream system or it could move downstream in increments. As such, it could be temporarily deposited in the anadromous reach potentially increasing substrate embeddedness leading to short-term impacts on spawning habitat quality. In the long-term, the modification to the diversion is expected to improve habitat conditions in the reaches below the diversion. No mitigation measures are proposed for this potential adverse effect.

Mitigation Measures: None proposed.

9.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

9.5.4.1 Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative

Please refer to Section 9.5 for Construction and Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The existing above ground Liddell pipeline follows the existing ROW through redwood forest habitat and riparian areas in watersheds of the East Branch of Liddell Creek and Yellow Bank Creek. The existing ROW includes four stream crossings and in one area is in the streambed of Y Creek prior to its intersection with the Laguna pipeline at the Y.

9.5.4.2 Liddell Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 1-1: Construction of proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

Pipeline construction would likely consist of both above and below ground installation, mostly adjacent to the access road to reduce stream crossings. This would be a slight adjustment (approximately 10 to 20 feet) to the existing ROW to place the pipeline in or adjacent to the existing access road. There would be a couple of stretches along this reach (immediately downstream of the diversion structure and the crossing through Rattlesnake Ridge area) that would not be placed immediately adjacent to the access road. The alignment would eliminate the stream crossing on Y Creek (LID-04) upstream of the Y.

Aquatic Resources Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline at four narrow stream crossings. Implementation of this alternative would eliminate one stream crossing (LID-04) and would move the pipeline out of the riparian habitat in the western portion of Yellow Bank Creek watershed. These actions would result in an environmental benefit once construction is completed.

1-1a – Construction activities that generate sediment runoff could impact the quality of downstream habitat accessible to steelhead and favorable dispersal habitat for California red-legged frogs and southwestern pond turtles. The East Branch of Liddell Creek and Yellow Bank Creek contain areas of

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-51 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources erosive sandstone. Steps would need to be taken to minimize soil erosion during and following construction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction in the riparian zone at the stream crossings, vegetation removal adjacent to the roadway near the existing alignment, and vegetation removal on the steep slope immediately down gradient of the spring box diversion.

1-1b – Construction activities could impact the riparian vegetation, a potentially jurisdictional wetland located at approximately 1,600 feet along the pipeline, and another potential wetland located near the stream crossing (LID-03) in the Rattlesnake Canyon area. It is anticipated that impacts to these wetlands can be avoided by re-routing the pipeline, elevating the pipeline (e.g., in Rattlesnake Canyon) or through habitat restoration.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction on the pipeline in areas of redwood forest and oak woodland, and grassland areas and scrub areas where canopy cover is less than 30 percent of the ground surface.

1-1c – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species and special-status species such as the Cooper’s hawk and burrowing owl and foraging habitat for these species throughout the Liddell Reach. To the extent possible the pipeline would be moved from its existing alignment, located off the access road, to immediately adjacent to the existing access road. This would minimize impacts to the surrounding redwood forest and grasslands, resulting in reduced environmental disturbance and more rapid construction.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities associated with this alternative include regular inspections and some vegetation control along the ROW. Several stretches of the existing alignment are inaccessible and have become overgrown. Placing the pipeline would provide improved access and reduce the need for extensive vegetation control. Potential impacts associated with operations and maintenance activities are addressed through the general BMPs described in the beginning of this section.

9.5.4.3 Liddell Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 1-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-52 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Pipeline construction includes placement of a short segment of the pipeline from the spring box diversion to the point where the pipeline enters the canyon bottom of the East Branch of Liddell Creek. This segment of the pipeline would be relocated to the existing access road and routed along the roadway adjacent the RMC Pacific Materials sediment basin area to the East Fork of Liddell Creek. This would eliminate the removal of the riparian habitat immediately below the spring and would provide better access. From this point to Y Creek, the pipeline alignment is identical to the proposed Existing Alignment Alternative. All impacts to biological resources related to the majority of the existing pipeline length, including all of the stream crossings discussed for the Liddell Alternative, would apply to the Liddell Alternative 3.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Historically the riparian vegetation in the ravine immediately below the spring has not be controlled, therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in changes in the operations and maintenance activities. However, it is anticipated that inspection and repairs of the first 800 feet of the pipeline would be easier under Alternative 3.

9.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

9.5.5.1 LAG/LID Alternative 1- No Project Alternative

Please refer to Section 9.5 for Construction and Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The existing Laguna/Liddell pipeline alignment crosses Y Creek and crosses Laguna Creek at two locations aboveground, one of which is a substantial span crossing in a limited access area with steep banks. The potential for pipeline leaks and breaks in these areas exists.

9.5.5.2 LAG/LID Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 2-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

Pipeline construction involves replacing the pipeline within the existing ROW with only minor deviations. Construction along this alignment would cross Laguna Creek at three locations and pass through the mature riparian corridor.

Aquatic Resources 2-1a – Pipeline construction would occur at two stream crossings within the anadromous reach of the Laguna Creek riparian corridor. At both locations the pipeline could be suspend above or directionally drilled beneath the creek.

2-1b – Construction activities could disrupt or reduce suitable California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle foraging and dispersal habitat adjacent to the stream crossings and within the watershed. This area is known to be occupied by the California red-legged frog (ENTRIX 2004) and other frog species.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-53 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 2-1c – Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline within the riparian corridor along Laguna Creek and the riparian zone at the stream crossings. Construction activities could impact the riparian forest through the trimming or removal of mature oaks and bay trees to install the new pipeline. The use of heavy equipment or vehicles and potential trenching activities in close proximity to mature trees in the pipeline alignment may cause damage to their root systems. If mitigation measures are employed to reduce the loss of habitat, these impacts would be considered less than significant. The removal of mature trees could result in long-term impacts to the quality of the riparian corridor habitat and would be in conflict with the City’s Heritage Tree ordinance, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 2-1d – Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline within the riparian corridor and adjacent meadows and mixed forest. Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt nesting habitat for migratory birds and special-status species such as the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl and foraging habitat for these species including the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and black swift.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, and e (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities associated with this alternative would be identical to current operations with periodic mowing of the ROW through two meadows and inspection of the line at the two stream crossings in the anadromous reach of Laguna Creek.

9.5.5.3 LAG/LID Alternative 3 - Alternate Alignment (Road)

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 2-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

This alternative would construct the pipeline in the existing access road from the relocated Y on the western side of Y Creek to the NCP pipeline and cross a small, ephemeral stream. The alignment would eliminate three stream crossings in the anadromous reach, avoid two meadows, and mature riparian and oak trees.

Aquatic Resources No significant impacts related to construction or construction-related activities would occur under this alternative. Implementation of the proposed alternative involves rerouting the pipeline through less viable habitat and away from habitat known to be occupied by steelhead and California red-legged

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-54 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources frog. This alternative may also reduce sedimentation to the lower reaches of Laguna Creek through improvements to the access road. As a result, no significant impacts are anticipated.

Botanical/Wetland Resources This alignment was not surveyed for special-status plant species or wetlands. However, because the pipeline would be placed in an existing, dirt, access road, plant and wetland surveys are unlikely to identify any potentially sensitive habitats. As a result, no significant impacts would be anticipated for this alternative. Further surveys would need to be conducted to confirm this conclusion prior to construction.

Terrestrial Resources 2-2a – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species and special-status species such as the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl. Foraging habitat impacts for the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and black swift are expected to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, and e (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

No significant impacts to aquatic, botanical/wetland or terrestrial resources are anticipated because operation and maintenance activities would occur along the existing access road and the route avoids all perennial stream crossings.

9.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

9.5.6.1 Laguna Alternative 1- No Project Alternative

Please refer to Section 9.5 for Construction and Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The existing Laguna pipeline follows Smith Grade Road for approximately 1,300 feet and then enters Laguna Creek canyon. The canyon includes several known slide areas as indicated by recently repaired wash out areas along the access road. The existing route parallels the creek along a narrow access road, and crosses the creek in three locations, one of which is a substantial gorge crossing in a particularly steep area of the canyon.

9.5.6.2 Laguna Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 3-1: Construction of the proposed pipeline could impact certain species and their habitat.

Pipeline construction would replace the pipeline along the existing alignment with no significant deviations from the ROW. The pipeline would be suspended above the creek or attached to the existing bridges at the first two stream crossings (LAG-01 & LAG-02) and suspended across Y Creek (LAG-04) on the existing footbridge. Access to the steep slope on the north side of LAG-03 consists of a footpath approximately 300 feet long from the dirt access road to the creek. Widening the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-55 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources footpath could require removal of some relatively mature second growth redwood trees and undergrowth.

Aquatic Resources 3-1a – Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline at the three stream crossings and on steep side slopes on Laguna Creek and one stream crossing on Y Creek. Aquatic habitat in Laguna Creek is generally of high quality and sedimentation resulting from bank erosion or slope failure could significantly impact water quality and resident trout habitat, and could lead to sedimentation in the anadromous reach downstream.

3-1b – Construction activities could disrupt suitable foraging and dispersal habitat for California red- legged frogs and southwestern pond turtles. California red-legged frogs are known to be present at the Y Creek stream crossing.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline within the riparian corridor along Laguna Creek and the riparian zone at the stream crossings.

3-1c – Construction activities could impact the redwood forest through the potential removal of a small number of mature second growth redwood trees (some more than 75 years old) and undergrowth to install the new pipeline on the west bank at the third stream crossing. If mitigation measures are employed to reduce the loss of habitat, these impacts would be considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources Implementation of the proposed Project involves construction of the pipeline within grassland and scrub areas, redwood forest, and oak woodland areas.

3-1d – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or -disrupt potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species and special-status species such as the burrowing owl, and foraging habitat for these species including the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and black swift. To the extent possible the pipeline would be constructed within the existing access road minimizing the impact to the adjacent habitats.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

No significant impacts would result from the operations and maintenance activities because they would not differ from current operations.

9.5.6.3 Laguna Alternative 3 - Alternate Alignment (RIDGE)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-56 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

This alternative would place the pipeline outside of the Laguna Creek canyon and reduce the number of stream crossings and work within the riparian corridor. The pipeline would be placed below ground in or adjacent to the residential access road that runs along the ridgeline west of Laguna Creek rejoining the existing ROW at the Y. This alternative would also include the installation of a pump station at the Laguna Diversion site to lift water to the ridge top.

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 3-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

Aquatic Resources 3-2a – A new stream crossing would occur from Smith Grade Road to the residential access road at or near the existing bridge. The pipeline could be suspended or placed beneath the creek. Construction activities could disrupt water quality conditions adversely impacting habit downstream for steelhead, other fish species, California red-legged frog, and southwestern pond turtle.

3-2b – A suspended pipeline stream crossing would occur at Y Creek. This location is known to be occupied by California red-legged frogs.

3-2c – The pipeline would be placed in the one-lane residential access road from Laguna Creek to the ridgeline. Sediment and debris from the construction activity could wash down into the Laguna Creek upstream of the anadromous reach.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 3-2d – A vehicle reconnaissance visit was conducted along this alignment, however, the alignment was not surveyed for special-status plant species and wetlands. Until further surveys are conducted, impacts would be considered potentially significant. The pipeline route passes the “Meadow” along the ridgeline, which is reported by local residents to contain native coastal prairie grassland species.

3-2e - The following potential impacts were identified during the Scoping Meeting in June 2004. The pipeline would be constructed below grade in the residential access road that runs the length of the “Meadow” along the ridge top. This area is described by residents as coastal prairie grassland that is grazed. Construction in this area may cause compaction of the soils and may adversely effect the vegetation adjacent to the roadway.

3-2f – Two large redwood trees that serve as the entrance gate to the “Meadow” are located at the eastern end of the “Meadow”. Construction of the pipeline would require trenching and the use of heavy equipment in the root zone of these trees potentially resulting in damage to the tree roots.

Terrestrial Resources 3-2g – The alternative alignment has not been surveyed for wildlife resources or habitat types, but based on a review of aerial photographs from March 2002, construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential nesting habitat for the Cooper’s hawk and white-tailed kite in the redwood forest and oak woodland areas and burrowing owl in the grassland and scrub areas, and foraging habitat for the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, burrowing owl, and black swift.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-57 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

3-2h – Should fencing be required to protect the above ground pressure relief valves from damage by cattle in the “Meadow”, then this might disrupt wildlife utilization of the area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities along the pipeline would include periodic visual inspection and potentially mowing along the pipeline segment on the southern slope of the ridgeline (pd 7,000 to 8,978 feet). During the winter months the “Meadow” area is reported by local residents to be very wet and not suitable for vehicle traffic.

Biological Resources Impact 3-3: Pipeline maintenance could impact certain species and their habitat.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 3-3a – Mowing and off-road vehicle traffic could impact native prairie grassland species potentially present in the “Meadow” and on the southern ridgeline slope.

Mitigation Measures: Periodic surveys would need to be conducted to note the presence of rare native species with in the ROW to ensure that they could be avoided during mowing operations.

Mitigation Measures: Wet season vehicle traffic would be limited to the roadway and would occur only with permission from the local residents.

9.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

9.5.7.1 Majors Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative

Please refer to Section 9.5 for Construction and Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Downstream of the diversion the existing alignment runs adjacent to Majors Creek through redwood forest habitat and lies within the riparian corridor for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet. From this point the aboveground pipeline is located downgradient from and parallels the dirt access road. The existing pipeline passes through a tunnel from Majors Creek Canyon to the marine terrace grasslands (pd 8,000 feet). Current access to the pipeline is limited to foot travel. Much of this area is difficult to traverse due to large trees, a heavy understory, and steep side slopes. The bench cuts for the pipeline are often barely more than the width of the pipeline.

9.5.7.2 Majors Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 4-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

Pipeline construction would replace the pipeline in the existing ROW from the Majors Creek Diversion intake to the confluence with the NCP Reach near Highway 1. The aboveground pipeline

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-58 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources would run through the mixed forest adjacent to or downgradient from the access road and across the north-facing slope to the cliff where the canyon opens up to the south facing lower coastal marine terrace. At the Gordola Creek crossing (MAJ-01), the pipeline could be installed via directional drilling or could be attached to the Highway 1 overpass. Since large portions of the existing ROW are below the access road on the steep forested slopes, it is anticipated that materials and equipment would need to be lowered down the slope from the access road. The removal of some mature trees (e.g., second growth redwoods, tan bark oak and bay trees) and a substantial amount of undergrowth is anticipated to provide ROW access for equipment and materials. It is anticipated that an access point would need to be constructed approximately every 400 to 800 feet along the 8,000 feet of pipeline within the canyon.

Aquatic Resources 4-1a – Construction immediately adjacent to the stream within the riparian corridor would occur for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the diversion. California red-legged frogs, turtles, and other frog species may occupy this area. Bank disturbance and erosion could impact water quality and contribute sediment to the anadromous reach downstream, disturbing potential suitable habitat for steelhead, trout, and other native fish species.

4-1b – Tree and vegetation removal, and construction on the steep slopes above the creek could cause erosion of surface soil during and following construction resulting in sedimentation in the anadromous reach of Majors Creek below.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-1c – Construction along the first 2000 feet of the existing alignment within the riparian corridor could damage the riparian vegetation within the 50-foot buffer zone required by the Santa Cruz County Plan and the RWQCB.

4-1d – Seasonal wetlands in close proximity to the existing ROW on the marine terrace grasslands east of Majors Creek could be disturbed during construction through vehicle traffic, trenching or other construction-related activities; and

4-1e – Construction activities could impact the redwood forest and other tree species through the removal of relatively mature second growth trees (some more than 100 years old) along the existing ROW. Removal of or impacts to some of these trees may be an unavoidable impact associated with replacement along the existing alignment, resulting in a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 4-1f – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle on the marine terrace. Surveys would need to be conducted prior to construction to ensure appropriate avoidance measures are taken if necessary.

4-1g – Construction on the forested slopes of Majors Creek canyon and on the marine terrace could disturb potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and special-status species such as the Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon and burrowing owl, and foraging habitat for these

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-59 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources species including the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, black swift, and other species inhabiting the area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities along the existing alignment in Majors Creek Canyon have been limited to infrequent vegetation control and visual pipeline inspection due to the difficult access. The maintenance activities associated with this alternative are not expected to differ significantly from current operations.

Biological Resources Impact 4-2: Pipeline maintenance could impact certain species and their habitat.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-2a – The portion of the Majors Reach pipeline along the marine terrace is mowed semi-annually. Appropriate minimization measures should be taken to reduce the impacts to native plant species (e.g., purple needle grass) and seasonal wetlands.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, and c (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 4-2b – Mowing on the marine terrace could disturb or harm nesting habitat for burrowing owls, if present.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, c, and d (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

9.5.7.3 Alternative 3 - Ridge Top Alternative

The Ridge top pipeline alternative would route the pipeline up the Majors Creek Canyon slope from a pump station at the diversion location to the eastern ridgeline. This would reduce the extent of construction across the steep canyon slopes associated with the existing ROW from approximately 8,000 feet to less than 1000 feet. The pipeline would be placed above ground at the transition between the marine terrace grasslands and the forested slopes, thereby provide greater ease of construction and maintenance. The pipeline would be placed below ground in the existing access road once on the lower marine terrace and join the existing ROW on the lower marine terrace where the existing ROW crosses the access road. This alternative would include the construction of a pump station at the Majors Creek Diversion to lift water to the ridgeline. Although this alternative makes use of a pump station it will not be designed to generate additional water diversion capability.

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 4-3: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-60 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Aquatic Resources 4-3a – Construction activities at the diversion site could potentially disturb or harm California red- legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, and semi-aquatic species inhabiting the upland area adjacent to the diversion.

4-3b – Construction of the pipeline to the ridgeline would run up the slope perpendicular to the creek for a distance of approximately 1000 feet. Appropriate erosion control measures would need to be taken to prevent sedimentation in Majors Creek.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-3c – Construction of the pump station and new pipeline running east up the canyon slope at the diversion site could require the removal or temporarily disturb the riparian vegetation present in this area.

4-3d – It is anticipated that construction of the pipeline up the Majors Creek Canyon to the ridgeline marine terrace would require the removal of mature second growth trees (e.g., redwoods, oaks, and laurel) and under-story vegetation that may include special status species.

4-3e – It is anticipated that construction of the pipeline from the diversion site to the ridgeline would require the use of a crane from the ridgeline to support construction activities on the steep slope. Movement of heavy equipment to this location over the marine terraces may impact native and special status plant species, and seasonal wetlands, if present.

4-3f – Construction of the pipeline along the transition zone between the forested slopes and marine terrace grassland on the upper marine terrace and across the lower marine terraces may impact native and special status plant species. The extent of these impacts would be dependent upon the distribution of these species of interest at the time of construction.

4-3g – Seasonal wetlands in close proximity to the ROW on the marine terrace grasslands east of Majors Creek could be disturbed during construction through vehicle traffic, trenching or other construction-related activities. These areas would be avoided to the extent possible by placing the pipeline at the edge of the marine terrace or in the existing access road.

The upper portion of the Ridge Top Alignment has not been surveyed for special status plant species, but based on the review of available information, it appears that some wetlands may be present along the alternative alignment on the marine terraces. Special-status species may also be present. Until further surveys are conducted, impacts would be considered potentially significant.

Terrestrial Resources The alternative alignment has not been surveyed, but based on a review of aerial photographs from March 2002 the following potential impacts have been identified.

4-3h – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle along the existing disturbed roadways on the marine terraces;

4-3i – Construction on the forested slopes of Majors Creek canyon and on the marine terrace could disturb potential nesting habitat for migratory bird species and special-status species such as the Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl and foraging habitat for these species including

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-61 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, black swift, and other species inhabiting the area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities for the Alternative 2 alignment would include visual inspection, maintenance of erosion control structures along the canyon slope, and semi-annual vegetation mowing along the pipeline route at the edge and across the marine terrace grasslands.

Biological Resources Impact 4-4: Pipeline maintenance could impact certain species and their habitat.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-4a – The portion of the Majors Reach pipeline along the marine terrace is mowed semi-annually. Appropriate minimization measures should be taken to reduce the impacts to native plant species (e.g., purple needle grass) and seasonal wetlands.

4-4b – Mowing the vegetation along the transition between the mixed evergreen forest and the marine terrace grassland on the upper marine terrace would impose an artificial control on the natural encroachment and successional stages of the forest and scrub/shrub habitat on the coastal prairie grasslands. This could be viewed by some stakeholders as a potential environmental benefit and as a significant environmental impact by others. No mitigation measures are proposed.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, and c (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 4-4c – Mowing on the marine terrace could disturb or harm nesting habitat for burrowing owls and Ohlone tiger beetle, if present.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, c, and d (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

9.5.7.4 Majors Alternative 4 – Road

The Road Alternative places the pipeline below grade in the existing access road to the extent possible. This alternative requires construction of a pump station at or near the Majors Creek diversion site to lift water to the marine terrace. The pipeline would be constructed above ground in the existing alignment for a distance of approximately 1,200 feet at which point the pipe would located below grade in or adjacent to the existing access road for a distance of approximately 6,000 feet to the point where the existing ROW crosses the access road on the lower marine terrace. This alternative would be the same as the existing ROW and Ridge Top Alternative from this point to the intersection with the NCP reach. The pipeline would be placed in or adjacent to the roadway except where it is suspended over small ravines or placed on the slope below the road to avoid excessive vertical undulation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-62 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 4-5: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

Aquatic Resources 4-5a – Construction activities at the diversion site could potentially disturb or harm California red- legged frogs, southwestern pond turtles, or other semi-aquatic species inhabiting the upland area adjacent to the diversion impoundment.

4-5b – Construction immediately adjacent to the stream within the riparian corridor would occur for a distance of approximately 2,000 feet downstream of the diversion. California red-legged frogs, turtles, and other frog species may occupy this habitat. Bank disturbance and erosion could impact water quality and contribute sediment to the anadromous reach downstream, disturbing potential suitable habitat for steelhead, trout, and other native fish species.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-5c – Construction of the pump station at the diversion site could require the removal or temporarily disturb the riparian vegetation present in this area.

4-5d – It is anticipated that construction of the pipeline along the Majors Creek Canyon access road could require the removal of mature second growth trees (e.g., redwoods, oaks, and laurel) and understory vegetation that may include special status species.

4-5e – Seasonal wetlands in close proximity to the ROW on the marine terrace grasslands east of Majors Creek could be disturbed during construction through vehicle traffic, trenching or other construction-related activities. These areas would be avoided to the extent possible by placing the pipeline in the existing access road.

Pre-construction surveys for native and special status plant species would need to be conducted along the proposed pipeline route to determine their presence and distribution. Until these surveys are conducted potential impacts on the marine terraces are assumed to be significant.

Terrestrial Resources Based on the existing alignment reconnaissance survey and habitat mapping the following potential impacts have been identified.

4-5f – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle along the existing disturbed roadways on the middle and lower marine terraces;

4-5g – Construction on the forested slopes of Majors Creek canyon and on the marine terrace could disturb potential nesting habitat for migratory birds species and special-status species such as the Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, American peregrine falcon and burrowing owl, and foraging habitat for these species including the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, black swift, and other bird species.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-63 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Operations and maintenance activities for Alternative 4 alignment would include visual inspection, maintenance of erosion control structures along the access road in the canyon, and semi-annual vegetation mowing along the pipeline route across the marine terrace grasslands.

Biological Resources Impact 4-4: Pipeline maintenance could impact certain species and their habitat.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 4-6a – The portion of the Majors Reach pipeline along the middle and lower marine terraces would be mowed semi-annually. Appropriate minimization measures should be taken to reduce the impacts to native plant species (e.g., purple needle grass) and seasonal wetlands.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, and c (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 4-6b – Mowing on the marine terrace could disturb or harm nesting habitat for burrowing owls and Ohlone tiger beetle, if present.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, c, and d (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

9.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

9.5.8.1 NCP Alternative 1 - No Project Alternative

Please refer to Section 9.5 for Construction and Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

The existing alignment crosses 13 streams, both perennial and intermittent, and traverses through predominantly grassland, agricultural, and disturbed areas, with some riparian habitat at the stream crossings. The eastern end of the pipeline passes through predominantly urban areas.

9.5.8.2 NCP Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Biological Resources Impact 5-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

The NCP Existing Alignment Alternative would replace the pipeline in the existing ROW with minor deviations. The alignment includes all 13 stream crossings and all of the terrestrial habitats associated with the existing alignment.

Aquatic Resources 5-1a – Pipeline construction would occur at the 13 stream crossings (both perennial and intermittent) along the existing route and traverses through some riparian habitat existing at the stream crossings.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-64 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

Construction activities could potentially disturb migratory or dispersal habitat for California red- legged frogs and steelhead at the Laguna Creek crossing (NCP-01), Gordola Creek crossing (NCP- 03), Baldwin Creek crossing (NCP-04), Sandy Flat Gulch (NCP-07), potentially at the Peasley Gulch crossing (NCP-08), and Wilder Creek crossing (NCP-09). Habitat for both species is found both up and downstream of Laguna Creek and Majors Creek crossings, downstream of the Wilder Creek crossing, potentially downstream of the Moore Creek west branch and east branch crossings (NCP-10 & NCP-11) and downstream of the Pogonip Creek crossing (NCP-13). In addition, construction activities could potentially impact suitable steelhead rearing and spawning habitat and California red- legged frog foraging and dispersal habitat at the Wilder Creek crossing (NCP-09). Appropriate minimization and mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources 5-1b – Construction activities could impact the riparian vegetation and potential jurisdictional wetlands at the pipeline stream crossings and in the grasslands west of the City. Impacts to riparian habitat at most crossings could be avoided by using alternative pipeline installation techniques, such as directional drilling under both the watercourse and adjacent riparian zone. Those crossings that are not planned for directional drilling do not have a substantial riparian zone, and therefore only minor temporary impacts would be anticipated.

5-1c – Construction on the marine terrace grassland, agricultural and disturbed areas could impact native and special status plant species

Based on the reconnaissance surveys conducted along the NCP pipeline route it is anticipated that appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the potential impacts to a less than significant level.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources 5-1d – Construction activities could temporarily disturb or disrupt potential habitat for the Ohlone tiger beetle in the Moore Creek Preserve and Wilder Ranch State Park where this species is known to be present.

5-1e – Construction along the forested and marine terrace area could impact the use of potential nesting habitat for migratory birds species and special-status species including the Cooper’s hawk, tricolored blackbird, yellow warbler, white-tailed kite, and burrowing owl, and foraging habitat for the tricolored blackbird, Cooper’s hawk, burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, and black swift. Significant impacts can be minimized through implementation of appropriate minimization and mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-65 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources

9.5.8.3 NCP Alternative 3 – High Street

Biological Resources Impact 5-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact certain species and their habitat.

All impacts (5-1a through 5-1e), related to the majority of the existing pipeline length including stream crossings NCP-01 through NCP-12 discussed for the existing alignment alternative would apply for the High Street Alternative. No new significant biological resources impacts are created by this alternative.

Construction-Related Impacts

Pipeline construction would be similar to the NCP Existing Alignment Alternative in that the pipeline would be replaced within the existing ROW west of the City Limits. The major difference between NCP Alternative 2 and NCP Alternative 3 is that this alternative would eliminate the creek crossing at Pogonip Creek (NCP-13), would avoid the construction on the steep slopes in Harvey West Park, and would avoid construction through the residential properties.

Aquatic Resources Implementation of the proposed alternative would have the same impacts on special-status aquatic resources as the existing alignment except that potential impacts associated with directional drilling at Pogonip Creek (NCP-13) would be avoided.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-1 a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, and j (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Botanical/Wetland Resources Construction with in the City limits would place the pipeline along the existing ROW under existing streets and the bike path in the City. This approach would avoid impacts to most botanical resources. Much of the vegetation in this area is horticultural species, but some trees may be large enough to meet the criteria for heritage trees in the City’s Heritage Trees Ordinance.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-2 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Terrestrial Resources Implementation of the proposed alternative would have the same impacts on the sensitive terrestrial wildlife resources as those described for the Existing Alignment Alternative.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 9-3 a, b, c, d, e, and f (refer to Section 9.5.9) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

9.5.8.4 Recommended Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 9-1: To minimize impacts to aquatic resources related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities, the following measures and BMPs shall be included: a) Implement sediment/erosion control measures during construction at stream crossings, working in and adjacent to riparian corridors, and on steep slopes; use erosion control material according to manufacturer’s specifications; and develop a SWPPP.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-66 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources b) To the extent feasible, restrict construction within stream channels to the dry period of the year typically from June 15 to October 15 or when stream flows are minimal or absent. If work must be done outside of this period, then the regulatory agencies (CDFG, NOAA Fisheries, and USFWS) should be consulted and a qualified biologist should survey the area prior to construction (see below, 9-1 c). c) Qualified biologist personnel should conduct pre-construction surveys to determine the presence/absence of listed species at the stream crossings and stake or flag a buffer zone around the population or habitat area in which the activities are to be avoided. d) If cofferdams, water bypass structures, or silt barriers are to be installed as part of the work involved, aquatic species would be relocated by a qualified biologist, consistent with applicable USFWS and CDFG permits, to ensure that fish and native aquatic species are not impacted. e) When work in a flowing stream is unavoidable, streamflow would be diverted around the work area, and diversion and reintroduction of water would be done at appropriate distances upstream and downstream of the work site to minimize habitat disruption. f) Maintain a biological monitor(s) onsite during construction to minimize disturbance to special- status species and their habitat and to document compliance. g) Implement BMP erosion control techniques to protect stream banks and minimize riparian habitat disturbance or use directional drilling or other appropriate techniques to minimize the potential for construction activities to increase sedimentation and turbidity. h) Avoid fueling, repair work, or vehicle washing in the creek channel or in areas at the top of the channel bank, and in the event of a spill or release of hazardous materials, implement the containment and clean-up measures outlined in the SPC Plan. i) Limit removal of vegetation to the minimum area necessary in the ROW or near the diversion structures. j) After instream work, return the streambed to its approximate pre-construction profile to ensure that flow patterns are unaltered and re-contour the ROW and restore original grades and drainage channels to minimize runoff.

Mitigation 9-2: To minimize impacts to botanical/wetland resources related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities, the following measures and BMPs shall be included: a) Limit removal of vegetation to the minimum area necessary in the ROW or near the diversion structure. b) Conduct construction and maintenance activities during the period when special-status plants are not flowering or fruiting. c) Conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species and/or the presence and extent of jurisdictional wetlands. If present, establish and maintain exclusion zones around special-status plant populations during construction, and for wetlands develop appropriate mitigation measures in association with the USACE.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-67 9.0 Biological and Ecological Resources d) Where feasible, re-align the pipeline or employ alternative pipeline installation techniques, such as directional drilling to avoid riparian or wetland areas or populations of special-status plant species. e) If ground disturbance should occur in an area with special-status plant species, the top ten inches of soil shall be salvaged and replaced after construction has been completed and the surface is recontoured. f) Re-contour the ROW and restore original grades and drainage channels to minimize runoff, stabilize exposed slopes and streambanks immediately on completion of installation activities, and restore in a manner that encourages vegetation to re-establish to its pre-project condition and reduces the effects of erosion on the drainage system.

Mitigation 9-3: To minimize impacts on terrestrial wildlife resources related to construction, operation, and maintenance activities, the following measures and BMPs shall be included a) To protect migratory birds, as required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, there shall be no removal of woody riparian vegetation during the recognized migratory period within the Project area typically from March 1 to August 1. b) Conduct pre-construction protocol surveys for special-status wildlife species (i.e., nesting Cooper’s hawks, American peregrine falcon, burrowing owls, white-tailed kite, Ohlone tiger beetle) shortly before construction is scheduled to begin. c) Establish and maintain no-disturbance buffers around active nests during the breeding season. d) Minimize disturbance in areas that are known to support special-status terrestrial species by limiting ground disturbance and other activities to the smallest possible corridor. e) To the extent possible and where feasible, place the pipeline in or adjacent to existing access roads to minimize impacts to the surrounding redwood forest and grasslands. f) Implement mitigation measures required by the City Department of Parks and Recreation under the Heritage Tree Ordinance.

9.5.9 Impacts Found to be Not Significant No impacts related to construction or construction-related activities would occur under the Laguna- Liddell alternative alignment for aquatic resources. The alignment would eliminate three stream crossings in the anadromous reach and avoid meadows and mature riparian and oak trees. Also, no impacts related to operation and maintenance activities would occur under this alternative for aquatic resources or for botanical/wetland and terrestrial resources, because the pipeline would be placed in an existing, disturbed roadway.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 9-68 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.0 Cultural Resources

10.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This section discusses the cultural and archaeological resources in and around the proposed Project area, and summarizes legislation applicable to cultural resources and archaeological sites. The area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources in the proposed Project area is divided into five separate areas: 1) the lands surrounding Laguna/Liddell Creek, just north of the Y and extending just beyond Highway 1 to the southwest; 2) the area surrounding most of Majors Creek; 3) the area along the NCP Reach, from approximately the dirt access road southward to approximately Peasley Gulch; 4) the NCP Reach portion located in the vicinity of Wilder Creek; and 5) the NCP Reach portion located within the City of Santa Cruz, from approximately Glen Coolidge Drive southward to Highway 17.

Cultural resources include prehistoric resources, Native American resources, and historic resources. Prehistoric resources are physical properties resulting from human activities that predate written records and are generally identified as isolated finds or sites. Prehistoric resources may include village sites, temporary camps, lithic (stone tool) scatters, roasting pits/hearths, milling features, rock features, and burials.

Native American resources are sites, areas, and materials important to Native Americans for religious, spiritual, or traditional reasons. These resources may include villages, burials, rock art, rock features, or spring locations. Fundamental to Native American religions is the belief in the sacred character of physical places, such as mountain peaks, springs, or burial locations. Traditional rituals often prescribe the use of particular native plants, animals, or minerals. Therefore, of primary concern are activities that may affect sacred areas, their accessibility, or the availability of materials used in traditional practices.

Historic resources consist of physical properties, structures, or built items resulting from human activities after the time of written records. Historic resources can include archaeological remains and architectural structures. Historic archaeological site types include town sites, homesteads, agricultural or ranching features, mining-related features, refuse concentrations, and features or artifacts associated with early military use of the land. Historic architectural resources can include houses, cabins, barns, lighthouses, early military structures, and local structures, such as missions, post offices, and meeting halls. The diversion structures on Reggiardo, Laguna, and Majors creeks and some portions of the pipeline were constructed prior to 1900. The majority of the NCS pipelines has been upgraded or replaced since that time.

10.2 Regulatory Considerations

10.2.1 Federal Regulations At the federal level, cultural resources are primarily protected through regulations found in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470). Because the proposed Project is not considered a federal undertaking, CEQA becomes the primary framework used to determine the significance of and effects on identified resources in the Project area.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-1 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.2.2 State Regulations CEQA – At the state level, CEQA addresses effects to historic and prehistoric archaeological resources. CEQA Guidelines include criteria to determine if a cultural resource is considered historically significant. Significant historic resources are defined as: 1) resources that are listed on or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and/or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP); 2) resources designated as locally significant; or 3) resources a Lead Agency determines are significant based on substantial evidence. However, CEQA Guidelines state that a resource need not be listed to be considered significant in regards to CEQA analysis (§15064.5(a) (4)). In order to be listed on the CRHR, a historical resource must meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Is associated with an event that has made a significant contribution to the pattern(s) of California history;

• Is associated with the life of a historically important person;

• Embodies a distinctive quality of a type, period, region, or method of construction, and/or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic value; or

• Is likely to or has yielded information important to prehistory or history.

Sites of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans may also be considered significant. When resources significant to Native Americans are known or likely to be present, or are newly discovered, the City of Santa Cruz and CEQA Guidelines require consultation with appropriate Native American representatives, determined the Most Likely Descendent (MLD) from a list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). Consultation would assist in determining the significance of impacts to cultural resources and developing mitigation plans to reduce the potential adverse effects on the resource.

The California Coast Act (CCA) contains policies that require impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources be mitigated and new development to be located in or near existing urban areas. This section also limits new and expanded public works facilities to those facilities necessary to accommodate new development uses permitted by the CCA.

10.2.3 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County General Plan – Section 5.9 of the General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994a.) describes policies and programs regarding rare and unique hydrological, geological, and paleontological resources in Santa Cruz County. These policies and programs are concerned with identification, protection, and designation of significant resources.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-2 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.3 Existing Cultural Resources Conditions

10.3.1 Historical Conditions

10.3.1.1 Archaeological Research

Prior to the 1960s, archaeological research in the region surrounding Santa Cruz was predominately undertaken by local museums and private collectors. Very little scientific data were recovered from these excavations due to the use of non-standard methodologies and the lack of a systematic recording process. The majority of the artifacts were either uncatalogued or the data never published. Little cultural information was obtained from these expeditions, and efforts to determine the cultural affiliations of artifacts were only cursory.

Since the 1960s, universities and private consultants have conducted hundreds of systematic archaeological surveys and excavations in the project region. San Francisco State University in particular conducted site recording and sampling throughout the region, adding to the limited existing body of archaeological knowledge. Mark Hylkema’s Masters thesis presents a thorough assessment of the prehistory of the San Mateo-Santa Cruz coast (Hylkema 1991).

As a result of CEQA requirements, archaeological data for the region have been greatly increased. The strict CEQA regulations require due diligence in situations where cultural resources may be lost or damaged. The field of cultural resource management and archaeological consulting has grown tremendously since the introduction of CEQA, increasing both the quality and quantity of archaeological work in California. Private archaeological consultants have added to the existing data in the fields of chronology, cultural affiliation, and life-ways of the local inhabitants through mitigation of impacts to irreplaceable archeological sites.

10.3.1.2 Ethnography

The Project area lies within the region occupied at the time of historic contact by Native Americans known ethnographically from their linguistic family as Costanoan. “Costanoans” (from the Spanish “costaños” or coast-dwellers) is a linguistic term used to describe groups speaking related languages, occupying the coast from the Golden Gate to Point Sur and inland to about the crest of the Diablo Range. Modern descendents of the Costanoan now prefer to be identified as Ohlone. Linguistic evidence suggests that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the San Francisco Bay area approximately 500 A.D., having moved south and west from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. Although linguistically linked as a “family,” the eight Ohlone languages actually comprised a continuum; it is likely that only neighboring groups could understand each other, the others being too widely separated to share common vocabularies. Along the ocean shore between Davenport and Aptos in Santa Cruz County, Awasas or Santa Cruz Costanoan was spoken by approximately 600 people (Levy 1978).

The basic unit of Ohlone society was the “tribelet,” a small independent group of usually related families occupying a specific territory and speaking the same language or dialect. Tribelets consisted of one or more permanent villages and several smaller temporary encampments located within a territorial boundary defined by physiographic features. Evidence demonstrates that neighboring tribelets strictly adhered to these boundaries. Inter-tribelet relationships were socially and economically necessary to supply marriage partners and goods and services not available locally. Trade and marriage patterns were usually, but not always, dictated by proximity; traditional territorial

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-3 10.0 Cultural Resources enemies were generally also defined by proximity (Levy 1978). The Ohlone territory was occupied by nearly 50 tribelets arranged in this central village pattern. The NCS crosses the traditional tribal territory of the Cotoni tribe, from the mouth of the San Lorenzo River north to Año Nuevo Creek, and east as far as Bonny Doon Ridge (Milliken 1995).

Ohlone populations relied on local natural resources for nearly all subsistence needs. Littoral (shoreline) and riparian environments, such as those in the San Lorenzo Valley, were the most biologically-productive ecosystems familiar to the Ohlone. These areas were therefore some of the most highly valued and the most intensively utilized and occupied in the San Francisco Bay region. As throughout Central California, acorns were the dietary staple of the Ohlones, but a large number of floral and faunal resources were utilized as well. The Ohlone ensured continued survival by managing their environment via direct manipulation. By burning grass and brush lands annually, they were able to keep fire danger low while improving foraging areas for deer and rabbits and keeping the land open and free from predators. But, most importantly, burning resulted in the improved productivity of seed- bearing annuals, which were vital to the Ohlone diet (Levy 1978). Tools present in the archaeological record associated with the Ohlones for use in subsistence activities include mortars, pestles, anchors, net sinkers, and various lithic tools.

Based on research conducted over the past 40 years, several conclusions can be drawn about pre- contact land use patterns within the project region. As stated earlier, the Ohlone relied upon local resources for subsistence. This foraging strategy was employed to take advantage of the variety of ecological zones available to them. Inhabitants were able to collect resources from marine terraces, riparian, grassland, and forest zones. Central villages were used as a base for seasonal movements synchronized with resource availability. Throughout the Project area, archaeological sites, primarily habitation and task sites, are found in these ecological zones. Habitation sites are locations used for long-term or temporary occupation. Task sites are those used for performing specific tasks, such as milling stations or lithic scatters.

The arrival of the Spanish in 1775 had a disastrous effect on the lives of the Ohlone and other Native American inhabitants of California. The Spanish exploration and missionizing led to a rapid and major reduction in native California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to largely eradicate aboriginal life-ways. Brought to the missions, local Native American groups were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural laborers (Levy 1978; Garaventa 1983; Shoup and Milliken with Brown 1994).

With abandonment of the mission system and the Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous ranchos were established. Generally, the Native Californians who remained were then forced, by necessity, to work on the ranchos.

The Spanish and Mexican Periods: 1769 to 1848

The first Spanish explorers into the Central Coast and inland regions were Sebastian Vizcaino (1602), Gaspar de Portola (1769), and Don Juan Bautista de Anza (1774). Their explorations led to mapped routes (e.g., El Camino Real) from the coast to inland valleys and helped to establish the mission system. Following the era of exploration, four Spanish institutions were employed to settle Alta California: missions, presidios, pueblos, and ranchos. Of these, the missions were the most successful. In August 1791, Mission Santa Cruz was established beside the San Lorenzo River. This Mission eventually controlled a section of the North Coast 11 leagues along the coast (28.6 miles) by 3 leagues (8 miles) inland (Kyle 1990). In 1797, the settlement Villa de Branciforte was established across the San Lorenzo River from Mission Santa Cruz to bring settlers into the area. El Matadero, a rancho located south and east of Laguna Creek, evolved into the Mexican-era Rancho Refugio grant,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-4 10.0 Cultural Resources a large land grant extending southward to Monterey Bay. Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna, adjoining the Rancho Refugio on the northwest of Laguna Creek, extended along the coast as far as San Vicente Creek (Kyle 1990). The Rancho Arroyo de la Laguna passed into American ownership in the early 1850s when two brothers acquired the land.

The American Period: 1848 to Present

In 1848, California became a United States territory as a result of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war with Mexico. The discovery of gold in Coloma in 1849 produced a major population increase in the northern half of California as fortune seekers poured into the territory in search of gold or the opportunities inherent in producing goods or services for miners.

Although not directly associated with the Gold Rush, the Central Coast region benefited from its aftermath with an increase in settlers seeking prime agricultural land. As the gold fields became less and less profitable, many discouraged miners turned their sights to farming. While most of the Central Coast was conducive to farming, the land north of Santa Cruz was hilly, rocky, and difficult to reach. The few individuals to settle in the North Coast were ranchers whose industry was well suited for the rugged landscape. At the same time, settlers discovered the abundance of natural resources available in the area – most importantly, timber. The growing city of San Francisco provided a rich market for goods produced in the North Coast area. Landings were built along the coast from Santa Cruz to San Mateo to help supply the burgeoning demand. However, the landings proved to be short-lived due to their exposure to the full brunt of the Pacific Ocean. Shipping was difficult along this stretch of coastline, and moving products over the rough terrain to and from the landings proved difficult as well. By the 1870s, most of these landings discontinued operations on the rugged North Coast.

A limited number of agriculturists moved into the North Coast area after the beginning of the 20th century. These farmers cultivated the flat, broad alluvial valleys of the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek. However, most of the land along the coast north of Santa Cruz was still used primarily for livestock production.

The long, foggy summer months of the North Coast proved a valuable asset to ranch owners who relied on the abundant grasses to sustain their livestock. By the 1870s, dairy farming was established as the primary land use north of Santa Cruz. Cattle grazed the green hills, and dairies were built in the coastal valleys along streams. Several historic coastal dairy complexes lie between Laguna Creek and Santa Cruz along modern Highway 1, including the Baldwin, Wilder, and Pio Scaroni dairy lands.

In 1873, the first major irrigation project took place on the North Coast. At Laguna Creek, Horace Gushee constructed a flume and diversion to serve the needs of his dairy and to irrigate his fields for row crops (Sentinel 1873). This was the first of several such projects constructed to exploit the abundant water of the coastal streams. Irrigation canals brought large-scale farming to the North Coast for the first time in history.

By the early 1900s, Santa Cruz and the North Coast had become an industrial hub, producing timber and mining products such as lime, sand, and bitumin. Tourists from San Francisco were drawn to the natural beauty of the area, and many resorts sprung up in the mountains above the coast.

The coast road, now known as Highway 1, became a heavily traveled route between Santa Cruz and San Francisco. After many years of straightening its serpentine path, the route was finalized in the late 1950s. Realignment left many disconnected segments, which were either overcome by vegetation or incorporated into small roads leading into the hills.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-5 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.3.2 Methodology An archival and record search for the proposed Project was conducted on April 30, 2002 at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California. The record search included the entire Project area as well as a 1/8-mile radius of the area. Included in the record search were all previous cultural resource surveys, known historic and prehistoric sites, and listed or eligible NRHP properties. State and local historic site inventories were also reviewed to identify the presence of any listed sites within the record search boundaries.

The inventory of cultural resources for the project vicinity is fairly substantial. A variety of projects have been undertaken in the area requiring archaeological survey and management measures.

10.3.2.1 Previous Cultural Resource Surveys

More than 75 surveys have been conducted within 1/8 mile of the proposed Project area. The majority of the surveys have encompassed portions of the proposed Project area.

Included in the previous survey areas were upper and lower portions of Majors Creek, the entire Laguna/Liddell Creek Alternative alignment, and the NCP Reach from Laguna to Wilder Creeks. Areas that have not undergone previous archeological surveys include Laguna Reach, the Liddell Reach, and portions of Majors Reach. East of Wilder Creek, the NCP Reach has not been extensively surveyed. Bibliographic references for the reports generated by the surveys were provided by the NWIC and are available upon request from ENTRIX, Inc.

10.3.3 Known Cultural Resources in the Project Area A total of 28 cultural resource sites have been recorded or reported within a 1/8-mile radius of the proposed Project area. Of these 28 sites, 13 are within or adjacent to the proposed Project area (Table 10-1). The sites, which are separated into groups based on their project location, are described below.

Laguna Reach and Liddell Reach

Neither Liddell nor Laguna reaches have been surveyed for cultural resources. There are no previously-recorded cultural resources, either adjacent to or within 1/8 mile of the existing and alternative alignments on the Laguna and Liddell reaches. The potential for cultural sites exists; however, no site-specific information is available at this time.

Laguna/Liddell Reach

The Lower Laguna Creek area contains a series of prehistoric midden sites: CA-SCR-13, CA-SCR-14, CA-SCR-15, CA-SCR-16, and CA-SCR-17 (Vallier 1997). All of these sites were identified in the early 1950s, and re-recorded in 1977 by Mark Vallier. The midden areas are characteristically placed at regular intervals on knolls above the creek drainage. Sites CA-SCR-13 and CA-SCR-14 are not adjacent to existing or alternative alignments. However, these two sites do lie within 1/8 mile of the existing alignment.

Two archaeological sites are adjacent to the existing alignment on the Laguna/Liddell Reach. These two sites (CA-SCR-15 and CA-SCR-16) are both recorded as shell middens. Originally recorded in 1950, SCR-15 is reported as a large village midden site on a large knoll overlooking Laguna Creek (Vallier 1977). CA-SCR-16 lies approximately 100 yards away from CA-SCR-15. CA-SCR-16 has

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-6 10.0 Cultural Resources been heavily eroded, leaving only a small area of intact deposit according to the updated site record (Vallier 1977). Researchers have collected hammerstones, scrapers, chert flakes, and mortars among other artifacts from these sites. In addition to the two recorded sites, two unrecorded archaeological sites are reported along the Laguna/Liddell Reach. These sites, a bedrock milling station and a shell midden, have not been formally recorded, and there is some confusion about their exact location and condition.

There are three previously-recorded sites within 1/8 mile of the Laguna/Liddell reach. All of these sites are prehistoric midden sites and are located along Laguna Creek. SCR-17 is within 100 feet of the Project area. CA-SCR-13 and CA-SCR-14 are more than 200 feet from the Laguna reach.

Laguna/Liddell Alternative

The entire Laguna/Liddell alternative alignment has been surveyed in the past. One archaeological site (CA-SCR-17) lies adjacent to the proposed alternative alignment, and is within 100 feet of the alternative route. CA-SCR-17 is described as a large midden with known burials. In 1994, a survey and sub-surface testing were conducted for a portion of the site near the Project area. This testing revealed only a few shell fragments and modern debris (Jones and Hildebrant 1994). Based on this information, it is evident that the site has been seriously disturbed, leaving the overall integrity of the site in question.

Majors Reach

The Majors Creek existing and alternative alignments (Ridge Top and Road) have been extensively surveyed in the past, covering the existing alignment from the diversion to p.d. 2,500 feet and from 5,500 feet to Highway 1. There are no previously reported archaeological sites within the Project area on the Majors Reach. However, three sites (CA-SCR-131, CA-SCR-82, and CA-SCR-28) are within 1/8 mile of this reach, and all are prehistoric sites. All of these sites are approximately 300 feet from the existing alignment and are located on the western side of the creek. The existing and alternative alignments are on the eastern side of the creek.

Majors Alternative

There are no previously reported cultural resources located within 1/8 mile of the Majors Alternative (Ridge Top).

NCP Reach

The NCP Reach alignment has been surveyed extensively from Laguna Creek to Wilder Creek. There are 16 previously reported archaeological sites within 1/8 mile of the NCP Reach within the Project area. Nine of these sites (P-44-000005, P-44-381, P-44-382, P-44-383, P-44-386, P-44-401, P-44- 406, P-44-480, and SCR-106) are adjacent to the pipeline route. Two of these sites (P-44-401 and P-44-406) are Highways 9 and 1, respectively. Three sites (P-44-005, P-44-480, and CA-SCR-106) are recorded shell middens. One site (P-44-386) is a sparse lithic scatter. The remaining three sites adjacent to the Project area (P-44-381, P-44-382, and P-44-383) are historic structures. A brief description of the nine sites adjacent to the Project area follows.

• P-44-406 – Formerly CA-SCR-334H. Highway 1 has been realigned several times throughout its more than 70-year history. North of Santa Cruz, the highway alignment is essentially the same as it was in 1933 to the town of Davenport (Leach-Palm 1999). However, minor realignments were made along this portion of the highway. At least 13 abandoned segments of original road exist

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-7 10.0 Cultural Resources

between Santa Cruz and Davenport. Along the stretch of Highway 1 adjacent to the existing alignment are various abandoned road portions, culverts/tunnels, and original Highway 1 segments that have been converted to new roads.

• P-44-401 – Previously designated CA-SCR-329H. Highway 9, built in the early 20th century, is adjacent to a portion of the NCP Reach. Other than the roadway itself, no associated facilities lie within the Project area.

• P-44-000005 – This site, originally recorded as CA-SCR-10 in 1950, is described as an occupation site (shell midden) with burials, flakes, and ground stone (Costa 1950). Subsequent studies provided differing locations for the site in relation to Highway 1. The site was eventually described as lying north and south of Highway 1. A 1993 assessment describes the site as two deposits separated by Baldwin Creek including a well-developed midden containing shell and burned bone, and moderate lithic scatter (Edwards 1993). The site is large, covering a total area of 78,000 square meters with an approximate depth of 30 centimeters. The 1950 site report refers to burials being reinterred “…in the hill adjacent to the site” (Costa 1950). A 1999 survey confirmed the location of the site and recovered several artifacts from intact midden deposit (Leach-Palm 1999).

• P-44-000480 – This site is actually composed of three components situated within the Wilder Ranch complex. Originally recorded as two separate midden sites, CA-SCR-38 and CA-SCR-123 are both shell middens. Numerous surveys and excavations have further defined the boundaries, and subsequently combined the two sites into one extensive shell midden containing lithics, groundstone, and other cultural materials. The third component of the site is the historic Bolcoff Adobe building and associated resources. The area around the Adobe has undergone archaeological investigation at least twice in the past 15 years (Jones and Hildebrandt 1994; Roper 1993).

• CA-SCR-106 – Described as a large midden with light shell scatter and extensive lithic waste including chert flakes, cores, mono fragments, and fire cracked rocks. This site was possibly a large Ohlone settlement encountered by the Spanish explorer Portola along Pogonip Creek. Based on obsidian hydration studies, this site may be one of the oldest in the City of Santa Cruz (Bordeau 1989).

• P-44-000386 – This site is a very sparse lithic scatter at the toe of a slope. The site is badly disturbed by a road and graded turnout.

• P-44-000381 – This is the Historic District of Majors. The small community was built around a railroad stop near Majors Creek. The three remaining structures were built in the 1910s and 1920s. These structures, all residential buildings, are downhill and several hundred feet from the existing NCP alignment (Leach-Palm 1999).

• P-44-000382 – This is a small building, probably a washhouse, isolated from other buildings on the Wilder Ranch State Park property south of Highway 1.

• P-44-000383 – This site includes nine buildings believed to be part of the 1920s-era Berjocchi ranch. Wilder Ranch State Park now owns the ranch complex.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-8 10.0 Cultural Resources

NCP Alternative

Three cultural resource sites lie within 1/8 mile of the NCP alternative alignment. Two of these sites (P-44-401 and CA-SCR-217H) are adjacent to the Project area. The third site (CA-SCR-25) is located approximately 500 feet from the Project area. P-44-401 is historic Highway 9, which runs adjacent to a portion of the proposed alternative alignment.

10.3.4 Historic Structures Adjacent to Pipeline Route Within the City of Santa Cruz are numerous historic structures listed in the Historic Property Data File, issued by the California State Office of Historic Preservation. This inventory indicates the presence of historic structures along the pipeline routes that may be affected by the proposed Project.

10.3.5 Consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission On April 24, 2002, correspondence was sent to the NAHC in Sacramento requesting a search of their Sacred Lands File. The search failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the immediate Project area. The Commission also provided a list of Native American individuals/organizations that may be contacted for additional knowledge/information.

10.3.5.1 Recommendations

It should be noted that the pipeline routes and alternatives have not yet undergone an archaeological survey. As mentioned above, 28 known sites are within 1/8 mile of the proposed Project location. It is recommended that an archaeological reconnaissance survey be conducted for the chosen alternative, once a decision has been made, before any further recommendations are considered. An intensive archaeological survey may involve walking along the pipeline and looking for evidence of cultural resources, recording discovered and previously discovered sites and delineating site boundaries. It is expected that approximately 2 to 7 miles of pipeline could be surveyed in one day.

Although the majority of the pipeline route has been surveyed in the past, most of the previous work was undertaken prior to 1995. Professional standards recommend re-evaluation of surveyed areas after 5 years. Newly-discovered and previously-recorded cultural resource sites within the Project area should be recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (DPR523) and evaluated in accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5.

This survey would serve to identify any previously-unrecorded archaeological sites within the proposed Project area and, additionally, would provide a project-specific assessment and evaluation of potential impacts to previously-recorded sites. The survey should be conducted by an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (48 Federal Register 44738-39).

Previously Undiscovered Cultural Resources

Pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(f), should any previously undiscovered resources be encountered during any construction phase on the proposed Project, work in the immediate area should cease until such time that a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and recommend mitigation measures, if warranted.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-9 10.0 Cultural Resources

Discovery of Human Remains

Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code (see also CEQA Section 15064.5[e]) should be implemented in the event that human remains or possible human remains are discovered. It states:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, as does the assigned Most Likely Descendent.

The County Coroner, upon recognizing the remains as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours.

10.4 Potential Cultural Impacts

10.4.1 Thresholds of Significance CEQA requires state agencies to consider the effects of their actions on important archaeological resources, as defined in Section 15064.5. CEQA states that a project may have a significant effect on the environment when the project damages an important archaeological resource. Section 106 of the NHPA states that an undertaking has an effect on a historic property (i.e., NRHP-eligible resource) when that undertaking may alter characteristics of the property that qualify it for inclusion in the NRHP. An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect on a historic property when it diminishes the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. There are no known culturally-significant sites within the Project area; however, 16 known cultural resources are located within 100 feet of the Project area, and the potential exists at various locations for finding previously-undiscovered cultural resources.

10.4.2 Impact Methodology The work conducted to date indicates that portions of the Project area contain known cultural resources. Reach-specific information regarding known occurrences is presented in Table 10-1. An archaeological survey including each of the project reaches would serve to identify any previously- unrecorded archaeological sites within the proposed Project area and, additionally, would provide a project-specific assessment and evaluation of potential impacts to previously-recorded sites. Until this survey is completed, the potential impacts to each existing and alternative reach are considered potentially significant; therefore, further reach-by-reach discussion is not presented below.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-10 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from ongoing O&M activities due to the non- intrusive methods used for these activities. Avoidance is the best method of minimizing potential impacts to cultural resources. The alternatives currently under consideration would realign the pipeline reaches away from areas more likely to contain cultural resources. If the cultural resource survey results in discovery of sites within the proposed pipeline alignment, the following steps would be taken to minimize and mitigate any potential impacts to less than significant levels:

• Where feasible, reroute the pipeline around a known site;

• Considering alternative construction methods to minimize impacts (e.g., aboveground installation, directional drilling);

• Construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist;

• Repair, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of an historical resource impacted by the Project;

• Documentation of an historical resource, by way of historic narrative, photographs, or architectural drawings;

• Covering an archaeological site with a layer of chemically stable soil before building aboveground facilities on-site; and

• Data recovery through archaeological excavation.

Tables 10-2 and 10-3 summarize the potential impacts to cultural resources.

10.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the specific project sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. As indicated in Tables 10-2 and 10-3, no significant or potentially significant impacts would occur for the following activities:

• No Project Alternative (all diversions and reaches) – since no construction would occur under this alternative, no impacts from construction or O&M activities would be anticipated.

• Laguna, and Majors Diversions – impacts from O&M activities are not anticipated for all alternatives proposed for these structures.

• Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and NCP Reaches – O&M activities are not expected to impact cultural resources for all proposed alternatives because these activities are non-intrusive.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-11 10.0 Cultural Resources these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Cultural Resource Impact 1-1, Cultural Resource Impact 1-2, etc.

10.5.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure

10.5.1.1 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact R-1: O&M activities have the potential to impact significant cultural resources.

This structure may be determined to be historically significant. If determined eligible for listing to the NRHP or the CRHR, O&M impacts would be considered significant. These impacts are similar to construction-related impacts. Therefore, a similar mitigation measure would be implemented.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-1 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.2 Laguna Diversion Structure

10.5.2.1 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact L-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact significant cultural resources.

This structure may be determined to be historically significant. If determined eligible for listing to the NRHP or the CRHR, construction impacts would be considered significant.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-1 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.3 Majors Diversion Structure

10.5.3.1 Alternative 2 - Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact M-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

This structure may be determined to be historically significant. If determined eligible for listing to the NRHP or the CRHR, construction impacts would be considered significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-12 10.0 Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-1 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

10.5.4.1 LID Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment and LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 1-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

There are two recorded cultural resource sites near both the existing and alternate alignments, one within 100 feet of both alignments. As no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of additional sites adjacent to the alignments.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 and potentially Mitigation 10-3 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

10.5.5.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 2-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Seven previously-recorded cultural resource sites are near the alignment, five within 100 feet of the alignment. As no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of additional sites adjacent to the alignment.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.5.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 - Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 2-2: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Seven previously-recorded cultural resource sites are near the alignment, three within 100 feet of the alignment. Since no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of additional sites adjacent to the alignment.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 and potentially Mitigation 10-3 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-13 10.0 Cultural Resources

10.5.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

10.5.6.1 LAG Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment and LAG Alternative 3 - Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 3-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

As no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of the existence of previously unknown sites adjacent to the alignment.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 and potentially Mitigation 10-3 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

10.5.7.1 MAJ Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment, MAJ Alternative 3 - Ridge Top Alignment and MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 4-1: Construction activities near or in Majors Creek access road have the potential to impact cultural resources.

Although there are three recorded cultural resource sites within 1/8-mile of all three alignments, the sites are located on the western side of Majors Creek. Construction would only occur on the eastern side of Majors Creek. Therefore, construction activities are not expected to impact these cultural resource sites.

In addition, Majors Creek access road has the potential to be determined an historic road. Construction activities could increase the wear and tear of the road if the pipeline were to be buried in the road.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 and potentially Mitigation 10-3 (below) would reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

10.5.8.1 NCP Alternative 2 - Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 5-1: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-14 10.0 Cultural Resources

There are 18 previously-recorded sites near the alignment, 10 within 100 feet of the alignment. Since no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of the existence of previously unknown sites adjacent to the alignment.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.8.2 NCP Alternative 3 - Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Cultural Resource Impact 5-2: Construction activities have the potential to impact cultural resources.

There are 18 previously-recorded sites near the alignment, three of which are located within 1/8-mile of the alignment. This alignment has one less site located within 100 feet than the existing alignment. Since no archaeological survey has been conducted, there is the possibility of the existence of previously unknown sites adjacent to the alignment.

Mitigation Measure: Implementation of Mitigation 10-2 and potentially Mitigation 10-3 (below) would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

10.5.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 10-1: If structures are found to be historically significant and/or are eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, then potentially significant impacts caused by the proposed Project to the structures would be mitigated. Such mitigations would include repair, stabilization, restoration, preservation, conservation, or reconstruction of the historic structure.

Mitigation 10-2: Construction conducted in areas or initial occupation of staging areas with known or potential cultural resource sites within 200 feet of the pipeline route or staging area shall be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. If the archaeologist determines that the archaeological site would be impacted by construction activities, work in the immediate area would cease until such time that a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the find and recommend mitigation measures, if warranted (e.g., aboveground installation, directional drilling).

Mitigation 10-3: Where re-routing the pipeline is not readily feasible, an archaeological survey should be conducted to determine the size and condition of known sites and the presence or absence of previously undiscovered sites within or adjacent to the proposed Project alignment. The eligibility of new sites and/or structures for listing on the NRHP and CRHR should be determined and documented, if applicable. Documentation of a historical resource could include historic narratives, photographs, or architectural drawings. Results of the archaeological survey would be used to create a cultural resources management plan, which would address procedures for assessing the effects of projects or other undertakings on cultural resources. This plan also would identify ways to avoid or reduce effects, and would include associated consultation and documentation.

10.5.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 10-15

11.0 Air Resources

11.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

The Project area is located in the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), which includes Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito counties, and has jurisdiction over the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). The NCCAB is currently in attainment for the six criteria pollutants regulated by the federal Clean Air Act. These pollutants include PM10 (particulates less than 10 micrometers in diameter or “inhalable particles”), carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and lead. The air quality monitoring stations located in Santa Cruz County have had no exceedances of the federal standards in the past 11 years (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA] 2003). The MBUAPCD maintains an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to develop methods for maintaining air quality standards throughout the region.

11.2 Regulatory Considerations

This section summarizes the federal, state, and regional air quality standards applicable to the project. In addition, this section discusses the general process to be implemented to assure compliance with such regulations. The USEPA has established ambient air quality standards for several different pollutants, which are often referred to as criteria pollutants (ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, fine and inhalable particulate matter [PM2.5 and PM10], and lead). Federal ambient air quality standards are based primarily on evidence of acute and chronic health effects.

Some states, including California, have adopted ambient air quality standards that are more stringent than the comparable federal standards or that address pollutants not covered by federal ambient air quality standards. Most state ambient air quality standards are based primarily on health effects data, but can reflect other considerations, such as protection of crops and materials or avoidance of nuisance conditions (such as objectionable odors). Federal and state ambient air quality standards are presented in Table 11-1.

11.2.1 Federal Regulations Clean Air Act (CAA) – The CAA requires federal agencies to comply with state and local air quality regulations. Section 176(c) of the act requires that federal agencies evaluate their proposed actions before proceeding to ensure consistency of such actions with the act and with applicable state air quality implementation plans. Proposed federal actions must not cause or contribute to new air quality standard violations, must not increase the frequency or severity of any existing violations, and must not delay the timely attainment of air quality standards.

The USEPA has promulgated rules establishing conformity analysis procedures for transportation- related actions and for other (general) federal agency actions. The USEPA general conformity rule requires preparation of a formal conformity determination document for actions they undertake, approve, or fund in federal nonattainment or maintenance areas when the total direct and indirect emissions of nonattainment pollutants (or their precursors) exceed specified thresholds. Compliance to the general conformity rule is demonstrated if project emissions fall below threshold values.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-1 11.0 Air Resources

11.2.2 State Regulations California Air Resources Board (CARB) – California established air pollution control programs before federal requirements were enacted. Responsibility for air quality management programs in California is divided between CARB, as the primary state air quality management agency, and air pollution control districts, as the primary local air quality management agencies. Federal CAA legislation in the 1970s resulted in a gradual merger of local and federal air quality programs.

11.2.2.1 Local Regulations

MBUAPCD – The District is responsible for air monitoring, permitting, enforcement, long-range air quality planning, regulatory development, education and public information activities related to air pollution within Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Benito counties. California Health and Safety Code Sections 39002, et seq. and 40000, et seq., require local districts to be the primary enforcement mechanism for air pollution control. Districts are required to adopt rules and regulations to implement and enforce the attainment and maintenance of federal and state ambient air standards.

11.3 Existing Air Quality conditions

The NCCAB is a nonattainment area for the state ambient air quality standards for ozone and inhalable particulate matter (PM10). Air monitoring data for 2000 show that the MBUAPCD meets the criteria for a nonattainment-transitional area having less than three exceedances of the state ozone standard at any one monitoring station (MBUAPCD 2000). Portions of the NCCAB in San Benito County, where inland valleys predominate, remain on the borderline between attainment and nonattainment of the state standard in part due to varied annual meteorological conditions, pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area, and locally generated emissions (MBUAPCD 2000). Inland sites at Hollister and Pinnacles have relatively higher pollutant concentrations due to lack of breeze and an additional pollution burden on high ozone days due to pollutants transported from adjoining larger air basins. Peak values at the monitoring locations in Santa Cruz are well within the state and federal standards for ozone and PM10 and show continuing improvement. Santa Cruz benefits from cool sea breeze winds that reduce ozone buildup.

Ozone, the primary constituent of smog, is formed in the atmosphere through complex chemical reactions involving volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. The primary sources of VOC and NOx within the NCCAB area are on- and off-road motor vehicles.

PM10 is classified as a primary or secondary pollutant depending on its origin. Primary particulates are unchanged after being directly emitted, e.g., road dust. Secondary particulates are formed in the atmosphere largely by chemical reactions involving gases, e.g., sulfate from directly emitted sulfur oxides. Natural sources of particulates include sea spray, forest fires, volcanic debris, etc. Human- made sources include fuel combustion and industrial processes, industrial and non-industrial fugitive sources, and transportation.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-2 11.0 Air Resources

11.4 Potential Air Quality Impacts

11.4.1 Thresholds of Significance The threshold of significance for construction impacts is 82 pounds per day or greater of PM10. Construction activity may result in a significant impact to air quality if the emissions exceed this level. According to the MBUAPCD CEQA guidelines, assuming 21.75 working weekdays per month and daily site watering, construction activities would result in significant impacts if 8.1 acres per day were disturbed with minimal earthmoving; a significant impact also would result if grading and excavation were to occur over 2.2 acres per day.

The thresholds of significance for direct and indirect operational impacts are as follows:

• Reactive organic gases (ROG): 137 pounds/day

• Nitrogen oxides (NOx): 137 pounds/day

• Particulate matter (PM10): 82 pounds/day

• Carbon monoxide (CO): 550 pounds/day

• Sulfur oxides (SOx): 150 pounds/day

In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on air quality if it were to result in any of the following:

• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;

• Produce emissions that would violate state or federal ambient air quality standards or otherwise expose people to a significant health risk; or

• Generate cumulative emissions for a calendar year that exceed the de minimis thresholds established by the USEPA’s general conformity rule (100 tons per year of reactive organic compounds and 100 tons per year of NOx).

11.4.2 Impact Methodology Impacts to air quality from the proposed construction activities, along with operation and maintenance activities, were determined by characterizing the existing air quality in the Project area, and assessing the potential for increased air emissions. Potential air emissions can result from sources introduced by the Project (e.g., construction equipment) and from existing sources in the project vicinity (e.g., contaminated soil). The existing conditions and potential impacts were compared to established significance criteria to assess the significance of any impacts identified.

11.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The proposed Project involves temporary construction activities spread out over a 15- to 20-year implementation period. No permanent sources of air pollutants would be created and the Project would not result in new population growth or inconsistencies with the AQMP for the Monterey Bay region.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-3 11.0 Air Resources

Project construction activities would include the use of heavy construction equipment and vehicles. These activities would result in a short-term, localized increase in equipment and truck emissions. However, these activities would not be permanent emission sources and most of the activities would take place in scarcely populated areas.

Dust generation from potential excavation activities is not expected to result in impacts under CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines indicate that 8.1 acres could be graded per day with minimal earthmoving, or 2.2 acres per day with grading and excavation without exceeding the PM10 threshold of 82 pounds per day. Due to the nature of the pipeline, excavation acreage is expected to be far below this threshold. Thus, potential dust generation and emissions would be minimal and are not expected to result in air quality violations.

Temporary vehicle emissions and generation of dust would occur at all alignments, although these emissions would not result in any significant air quality impacts. Emissions from activities would be minimized using common BMP measures such as turning off equipment and truck engines when not in use, and the use of standard site watering procedures for dust suppression and control. The application of appropriate BMPs for dust and emissions control, along with the short-term nature of the project, are expected to result in no significant air quality impacts under CEQA Air Quality Guidelines.

A portion of the project would occur in urban residential areas, where sensitive populations may be present. As noted in Chapter 13, a record search for hazardous waste sites identified five leaky underground storage tank (LUST) sites along the NCP Reach Alternate Alignment (Chapter 13, Figure 13-1). The sites are in various stages of remedial investigations and activities, which the City is not necessarily the responsible party. It is anticipated that appropriate precautions would be taken to monitor for emission of volatile fuel constituents and odors if construction activity is required in the immediate vicinity of these locations.

Additionally, an unauthorized trash dump was discovered along the NCP Reach Existing Alignment on private property. If construction activity is required in the immediate vicinity of the trash dumpsite, appropriate measures would be taken to determine the potential for emissions associated with this site.

The Laguna Reach Alternative Alignment and Majors Reach Alternatives 3 (Ridge Top) and 4 (Road) include the installation of a pump station at each diversion site. These pump stations which are required to lift water to the ridge top area are expected to use electrical equipment and would not emit any air pollutants. Therefore, potential impacts to air quality would not be expected.

Tables 11-2 and 11-3 summarize the potential impacts to air quality in the Project area.

11.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the specific sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches.

Potentially significant impacts from construction are not expected to meet or exceed CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Instead, air pollutant emissions from construction equipment may result in short- term, localized impacts to air quality. Emissions from combustion sources, as well as dust generation from excavation activities, could result in short-term increases in pollutant emissions during construction activities. However, under CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, these emissions do not

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-4 11.0 Air Resources constitute a significant impact. No other air quality impacts from construction have been identified for all diversion structures/pipeline reaches and alternatives, except for the NCP Reach, which is discussed below.

No significant impacts are expected from O&M activities conducted at diversion structures and all pipeline reaches except at the NCP Reach. Emissions from vehicles and equipment used for O&M activities are expected to be well below CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Impacts from O&M activities for the NCP Reach are discussed below.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Air Quality Impact R-1, Air Quality Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Air Quality Impact 1-1, Air Quality Impact 1-2, etc.

11.5.1 Pipeline Reach 5 - NCP

11.5.1.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Air Quality Impact 5-1: Air emissions may occur from the disturbance of soil below a nearby trash dumpsite.

Emissions could be released from an unauthorized trash dumpsite, although this is unlikely due to the size of the site and the nature of the discarded materials.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 11-1 and Mitigation 11-2 (below) would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Air Quality Impact 5-2: Localized air pollutant emissions may occur if the trash dumpsite continues to be used.

Emissions could continue to be released if soil below an unauthorized trash dumpsite is disturbed. This impact is unlikely due to the size of the site and the nature of the discarded materials.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 11-2 (below) would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

11.5.1.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Air Quality Impact 5-3: Air emissions may occur from the disturbance of soil below a nearby trash dump site or from five LUST sites adjacent to the alignment route.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-5 11.0 Air Resources

Emissions could be released from an unauthorized trash dumpsite, although this is unlikely due to the size of the site and the nature of the discarded materials. Additionally, emissions could be released if excavation activities were required in the immediate vicinity of any of the five sites identified as having LUSTs.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 11-1, Mitigation 11-2, and Mitigation 11-3 (below) would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Air Quality Impact 5-4: Localized air pollutant emissions may occur if the trash dumpsite continues to be used. Additionally, air pollutant emissions from the five LUST sites may occur from excavation activities in the immediate vicinity.

Emissions could continue to be released if soil below an unauthorized trash dumpsite is disturbed. This impact is unlikely due to the size of the site and the nature of the discarded materials. Additionally, emissions from the LUST sites may be released if the appropriate remedial activities are not conducted prior to any excavation activities required by the project.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 11-2 and Mitigation 11-3 (below) would reduce the potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

11.5.1.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures

Mitigation 11-1: The City shall ensure the application of appropriate BMPs to minimize both dust generation and emissions from construction equipment. BMPs for combustion emissions include limiting or avoiding engine idle time between construction activities. BMPs for dust generation include the use of vehicle wash stations and daily site watering.

Mitigation 11-2: The City shall ensure that construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the trash dumpsite would be avoided if at all possible. If excavation activities in the immediate vicinity of the site would be necessary, the private landowner would be contacted and asked to clean up the trash dumpsite. The City would take appropriate precautions during construction to monitor for emissions of volatile fuel constituents and odors when activities are taking place near these identified sites.

Mitigation 11-3: Prior to construction, the City shall determine the status and potential for contaminated soil in the vicinity of the LUST sites. The City would determine whether construction activities in these areas can be avoided or develop an appropriate plan for materials handling if encountered. The City would develop a Health and Safety Plan that would include monitoring and appropriate clean up of contaminated soil. The excavated soil would be tested and removed to an appropriate location. Appropriate precautions would be taken during construction to monitor for emissions of volatile fuel constituents and odors when activities are taking place near these identified sites.

11.5.2 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 11-6 12.0 Noise

12.0 Noise

12.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This section addresses noise impacts associated with the proposed Project alternatives. Because noise levels decrease with increasing distance from the noise source, the region of influence (ROI) for noise is limited to a distance of 2,500 feet (762 meters) from the principal noise sources.

Sound travels through the air in waves of minute air pressure fluctuations that are caused by some type of vibration. Sound-level meters are designed to detect these sound waves and to register different sound frequency ranges on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, an “A-weighted” decibel scale (dBA) is commonly used to represent the response of the human ear. Average noise exposure over a 24-hour period is often presented as a community noise equivalent level (CNEL). CNEL values are calculated from average hourly noise levels, in which the values for the evening period (7:00 PM to 10:00 AM) are increased by 5 dB and values for the nighttime periods (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) are increased by 10 dB. Such weighting of evening and nighttime noise levels is intended to take into account the greater human disturbance potential of nighttime noises.

Operation of heavy machinery used in grading would be the primary source of noise during the proposed Project construction. These effects would be temporary for each reach. Construction would generate noise of varying intensity and duration, depending on the particular task. Noise levels, therefore, would vary throughout the construction process.

12.2 Regulatory Considerations

Noise regulations for various categories of noise sources are established at the federal, state, county, and/or municipal level. Local noise regulations and guidelines are most applicable to the proposed Project. Cities and counties in California are required to include a noise element in their general plans. In addition, many cities and counties have adopted noise ordinances to set noise limits for various types of noise sources that are not regulated at the federal or state level.

12.2.1 Federal Regulations The Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (42 USC § 4901 et seq. [1994]) established a requirement that all federal agencies must comply with applicable federal, state, interstate, and local noise control regulations. Federal agencies also were directed to administer their programs in a manner that promotes an environment free from noise that jeopardizes public health or welfare.

12.2.2 State Regulations The California Department of Health Services (1987) has published guidelines for the noise element of local general plans. These guidelines include a noise level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes outdoor CNEL levels into the four compatibility categories of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable, depending on land use. The chart in the state noise element guidelines identifies normally acceptable noise levels for low- density residential uses as CNEL values below 60 dB. The normally acceptable range for high-density residential uses is identified as CNEL values below 65 dB.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-1 12.0 Noise

12.2.3 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County General Plan – In California, cities and counties are required to adopt a noise element as part of their general plan. The land use compatibility guidelines must be at least as stringent as the state standards discussed above. The noise element of the Santa Cruz County General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994a) contains guidelines that generally are more stringent than state standards. While the noise element focuses on requirements for new development, Policy 6.9.7 requires mitigation of construction noise as a condition of project approvals. Mitigation of construction noise often includes limiting the time of day that construction may take place.

Santa Cruz County Code – Section 13.01.040 (b)(6) of the Santa Cruz County Code requires the development of a noise element based on state guidelines pursuant to Section 46050.1 of the Health and Safety Code, as mentioned above. The element must take the following noise sources into account: highways, streets, railroads, aircraft, industrial plants, and other sources. The element establishes guidelines for development standards and compatible land uses, and provides a basis for a local noise ordinance. Section 8.30.010 prohibits the creation of offensive noises during curfew hours, specifically between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code – Section 9.36.010 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code also prohibits the creation of offensive noises during curfew hours, specifically between the hours of 10:00 PM and 8:00 AM. However, with prior authorization, this would not apply to activities under contract with the City of Santa Cruz Public Works between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 AM. Section 24.14.260 of the Santa Cruz Municipal Code establishes noise limits for residential and for commercial and industrial properties as no more than 5 and 6 dBA above the local ambient, respectively. The local ambient, as defined in Section 24.22.488, refers to the mean sound level during a 6-minute measurement period using a precision sound level meter. The local ambient noise may not be more than 40 dB.

12.3 Existing Noise Conditions

Within the Project area substantial sources of noise are few, but include quarry operations at the RMC Pacific Materials Quarry in the Liddell watershed and the sand quarry on Highway 1 (Figure 2-1). Quarry activities include blasting and the operation of heavy equipment. Heavy equipment and traffic noise is also associated with the City Sanitary Landfill on Dimeo Road, regular vehicle traffic along Highway 1, and agricultural equipment use on the coastal plain. Outside the City limits, with the exception of the sources noted above noise sources are limited. In addition, potential receptors for noise are relatively few due to sparse rural residential land use. Within the City of Santa Cruz, the primary noise source is likely to be vehicular traffic.

The City of Santa Cruz General Plan designates areas that are exposed to noise levels exceeding 60 dB Ldn (decibels averaged for day and night) as “noise impacted” (City of Santa Cruz 1994a). No noise impacted areas were identified along the proposed pipeline alignments.

12.4 Potential Noise Impacts

12.4.1 Thresholds of Significance In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on noise if it were to result in any of the following:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-2 12.0 Noise

• Increase in the ambient noise level for adjoining areas;

• Violation of Santa Cruz County General Plan noise standards; or

• Would be substantially affected by existing noise levels.

12.4.2 Impact Methodology Impacts to noise from the construction activities, along with operation and maintenance activities, were determined by characterizing the existing noise sources in the Project area, and assessing the potential for increased noise, both short-term and long-term. Potential sources of noise include sources introduced by the proposed Project such as construction equipment or permanent Project facilities, along with existing sources in the Project vicinity (e.g., industry). The existing conditions and potential impacts were compared to established significance criteria to assess the significance of any impacts identified.

12.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The proposed Project would result in short-term increases in noise levels due to construction, and possibly, permanent increases due to installation and operation of the pump stations for the Laguna and Majors alternatives. The reach-specific sections discussed below include site-specific information regarding potential receptors to increased noise levels and the impacts.

Operation of heavy equipment, along with trenching, directional drilling and general construction activities would result in increased noise levels relative to the virtually undeveloped surroundings in which the activities would occur. The highest decibel level expected would be for clearing and grading activities, at approximately 60 to 65 dBA at 1,000 feet from the equipment. This may potentially impact residents who live within the Project area. The temporary exposure to noise due to construction activities would be reduced, although still a short-term potentially significant impact, through the use of the following strategies:

• Require use of appropriate mufflers, silencers, and noise control features for equipment.

• Prohibit vehicles and other gas or diesel-powered equipment from unnecessary warming up, idling, and engine revving.

• Locate stationary construction equipment as far away from existing structures as feasible.

• Operate equipment and vehicles between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM.

In addition, the installation of electric pump stations to lift water to the ridge top area would result in an increase in the ambient noise level. While the pump rating and schedule has not yet been finalized, typical pumps of this nature operate at levels averaging 85 dBA (European Union 2001). The stations would need to be designed to meet local noise ordinances. This may require the use of sound walls, mufflers, or other sound-reducing technology. It is anticipated that permanent noise impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels if appropriate design measures are implemented. However, if design measures are not incorporated, this could result in a potentially significant impact. A summary of potential noise impacts is presented in Tables 12-1 and 12-2.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-3 12.0 Noise

12.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential noise impacts for the specific sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. Because there would be no planned construction under the No Project Alternative for all diversion structures/pipeline reaches, no noise impacts related to construction would occur. Additionally, no significant noise impacts related to ongoing O&M would be expected under this alternative. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required. For these reasons, this alternative is not further discussed below.

Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels at the Laguna and Majors diversion structures and at all pipeline reaches for all alternatives except the No Project Alternative. The potential noise impacts are anticipated to be the same for all reaches except the Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, and NCP reaches, which are discussed more specifically below. For the Liddell and Majors reaches, operation of heavy equipment, along with trenching, directional drilling, and general construction activities would result in increased noise levels relative to the virtually undeveloped surroundings in which the activities would occur. Although implementation of Mitigation 12-1 (below) would reduce the severity of this impact, noise levels may be potentially significant to some residents who live in the area.

Potential noise impacts from O&M activities would be expected to occur in the Laguna and Majors reaches under Alternatives 3 and 4 (Ridge Top and Road Alignments). These impacts are discussed more specifically below. Short-term, localized increases in noise levels from O&M activities would also be anticipated at the Reggiardo Diversion under the Repair Alternative. Any potential impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels by implementing Mitigation 12-1. In the remaining diversion structures and pipeline reaches for all alternatives, potential noise impacts are not anticipated from O&M activities. Therefore, O&M-related impacts are not discussed for the remaining structures/pipeline reaches for each site and alternative.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Noise Impact R-1, Noise Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed). Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Noise Impact 1-1, Noise Impact 1-2, etc.

12.5.1 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

12.5.1.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 2-1: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences.

Operation of heavy equipment, along with trenching, directional drilling, and general construction activities would result in increased noise levels, including construction areas adjacent to residences and in the riparian corridor. A few private residences are located in close proximity to the alignment on the eastern side and could potentially be disturbed. Although impacts would be temporary, noise

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-4 12.0 Noise levels could be potentially significant to residents who are in close proximity to construction activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although the impacts would remain potentially significant.

12.5.1.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 2-2: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences.

Operation of heavy equipment, along with trenching, directional drilling, and general construction activities would result in increased noise levels, including construction areas adjacent to residences. However, there are fewer residences that would be subjected to temporary increased noise levels under this alternative.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although impacts would remain potentially significant.

12.5.2 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

12.5.2.1 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 3-1: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences. Construction activity may occur over a longer period relative to other alignments.

Operation of heavy equipment, along with trenching, directional drilling, and general construction activities would result in increased noise levels, including construction areas adjacent to residences. Specifically, ambient noise levels could potentially increase temporarily along Smith Grade Road, nearby residences, and in the canyon. Although impacts would be temporary, noise levels could be potentially significant to residents who are in close proximity to construction activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although impacts would remain potentially significant.

12.5.2.2 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 3-2: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-5 12.0 Noise

Specifically, ambient noise levels could potentially increase temporarily along Smith Grade Road and in the rural residential area.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although impacts would remain potentially significant.

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 3-3: Noise from the operation of a newly-installed pump station would result in both short-term and long-term localized increases in noise levels.

The installation of an electric pump station would result in an increase above the existing ambient noise level.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

12.5.3 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

12.5.3.1 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 4-1: Noise from the operation of a newly-installed pump station would result in both short-term and long-term localized increases in noise levels.

The installation of an electric pump station would result in an increase above the existing ambient noise level.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

12.5.3.2 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Operations and Maintenance-related Impacts

Noise Impact 4-2: Noise from the operation of a newly-installed pump station would result in both short-term and long-term localized increases in noise levels.

The installation of an electric pump station would result in an increase above the existing ambient noise level.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-6 12.0 Noise

12.5.4 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

12.5.4.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 5-1: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although impacts would remain potentially significant.

12.5.4.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Noise Impact 5-2: Noise from the operation of construction equipment may result in short-term, localized increases in noise levels. This noise may affect nearby residences.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 12-1 and Mitigation 12-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact, although impacts would remain potentially significant.

12.5.5 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 12-1: The City should ensure that appropriate measures are implemented to limit the increase in ambient noise levels as a result of construction activities. These measures include:

• Require use of appropriate mufflers, silencers, and noise control features for equipment;

• Prohibit vehicles and other gas or diesel-powered equipment from unnecessary warming up, idling, and engine revving;

• Locate stationary construction equipment as far away from existing structures as feasible; and

• Operate equipment and vehicles between the hours of 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM on weekdays.

Mitigation 12-2: The City should ensure that in residential areas, residents would be informed of the schedule and duration of construction activities near their homes prior to the construction activities taking place, wherever possible.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-7 12.0 Noise

Mitigation 12-3: The City should ensure that the pump stations are designed to meet local noise ordinances. This may require the use of subsurface construction, sound walls, mufflers, or other sound-reducing technology.

12.5.6 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 12-8 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

13.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter describes hazardous material-related and hazardous waste-related issues for the proposed Project. This chapter provides an overview of standards and terminology, brief discussions on the regulatory framework as it relates to hazardous materials and wastes, and data on outputs of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes that may be used or generated by this project. This chapter also describes other potential hazards including forest fires and interference with any emergency response or evacuation plans. The ROI for the proposed Project includes the Project sites and surrounding land that would be contiguous with or be influenced by the proposed Project or its components.

13.2 Regulatory Considerations

13.2.1 Federal Regulations As defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, also known as “Superfund”) of 1980 and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, a hazardous material is a substance, pollutant, or contaminant that, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical and chemical characteristics, poses a potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines a hazardous waste as a solid waste (or combination of wastes) which, due to its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics, can cause or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality. RCRA further defines hazardous waste as one that can cause an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating reversible illness or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or otherwise managed. A solid waste is a hazardous waste if it is not excluded from regulation as a hazardous waste or if it exhibits any ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic characteristic (USEPA 1999a).

13.2.2 State Regulations The Carpenter-Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act (HSAA) (Health and Safety Code §§25340-25392) was enacted in 1981 to address similar concerns as CERCLA, that is, to establish release response authority, to compensate injured parties, and to establish a “state superfund” to pay the 10 percent state share of any federal cleanups in the state. Hazardous waste generation, disposal, and management facilities are taxed under the HSAA to finance the state’s hazardous waste regulatory program.

A facility whose acts or processes produce a hazardous waste or hazardous substance is subject to the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) of 1971 (Health and Safety Code §§25100- 25249). The HWCL implements the RCRA cradle-to-grave waste management system in California. It is the responsibility of the generator to determine whether the waste it generates is hazardous, based on its chemical composition and the criteria in CCR Title 22.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-1 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

13.3 Existing Conditions

13.3.1 Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes A comprehensive database search was conducted to identify potential areas of soil and groundwater contamination in the vicinity of the existing or alternative pipeline routes (EDR 2002). The database search consisted of the following site lists: AWP, CHMIRS, Toxic Pits, SWF/LF, WMUDS/SWAT, CONSENT, ROD, Delisted NPL, MLTS, MINES, NPL Liens, PADS, RAATS, TSCA, FTTS, DEED, CAL-SITES, CORTESE, NOTIFY 65, LUST, UST, CA FID, HIST UST, HMIRS, TRIS, AST, FINDS, Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites, HAZNET, DRYCLEANERS, WDS, CA SLIC (See List of Acronyms for definitions).

Sites were identified adjacent to the NCP Reach Alternative Alignment. Groundwater and/or soil along this route may have been contaminated by releases at one or more of these sites. The sites of greatest potential concern based on the proximity to the project routes and nature of documented release are listed on the CCRWQCB database as having LUSTs. The database search did not identify any other sites of potential concern along the existing and alternative pipeline routes. On July 10, 2003, Gina Morimoto of ENTRIX visited the CCRWQCB’s office in San Luis Obispo, California to review files for the identified sites having the greatest potential concern, as well as any other sites of potential concern that were not identified during the database search. Ms. Gina Morimoto met with Mr. Tom Sayles, a CCRWQCB geologist who is the primary contact for City of Santa Cruz LUST and spill sites, to review pertinent files.

Based on the results of the database search and the subsequent file review, the sites of greatest potential concern are summarized below by nearest milepost and shown on Figure 13-1.

• NCP Reach Alternate Route p.d. 9,000 Feet – City of Santa Cruz Corporation Yard, 1125 River Street, Santa Cruz. Had five USTs (removed in 1991), two of which apparently leaked diesel fuel into the surrounding soil. No hydrocarbon contamination was detected in groundwater. The depth-to-groundwater was 4 to 6 feet below ground surface (bgs). The CCRWQCB recommended remedial action to excavate and treat soil contaminated with gasoline. Remediation action took place in 1991, although no close date for the case has been reported.

• NCP Reach Alternate Route p.d. 9,000 Feet – Salz Leathers, Inc., 1040 River Street. Soil and groundwater at the site have been contaminated with chlorinated solvents, diesel, gasoline, and metals from USTs and other sources during approximately 150 years of operation. The depth-to- groundwater on-site ranges from 13 to 18 feet bgs, with a southeasterly groundwater flow. Remedial activities and ongoing groundwater monitoring are underway.

• NCP Reach Alternate Route p.d. 8,000 Feet – Devco Oil Co., 139 Encinal Street. Had seven USTs (removed) some of which leaked gasoline into the surrounding soil and groundwater. The depth-to-groundwater on-site ranges from 8 to 13 feet bgs, with a southeasterly groundwater flow. Groundwater plume appears to extend into Encinal Street adjacent to the site. The CCRWQCB has recommended remedial action to excavate and treat soil contaminated with total petroleum hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg), benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, xylenes (BTEX) and methylene tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). Remediation action took place in 2001, although no close date for the case has been reported. Groundwater monitoring is in progress, as is groundwater remedial planning.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-2 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

• NCP Reach Alternate Route p.d. 8,000 Feet – Santa Cruz Petroleum, 133 Fern Street. Had three USTs (removed) that have reportedly leaked. A clean-up and Abatement Order was issued in 2001. Based on close proximity to the Devco Oil Co. site, the depth-to-groundwater is expected to be 8 to 13 feet bgs, with a southeasterly groundwater flow. No additional information is available.

• NCP Reach Alternate Route p.d. 7,000 Feet – Commercial Warehouse, 320 Coral Street. Had one gasoline UST (removed), which leaked gasoline into the surrounding soil and groundwater. The observed depth-to-groundwater on-site ranged from 6 to 8 feet bgs, although groundwater levels in the vicinity of this site in close proximity to the San Lorenzo River are expected to fluctuate. Groundwater flow is to the east. Soil remediation has been conducted. The RWQCB conducted a preliminary assessment in 2001 to examine MTBE contamination in groundwater. Groundwater monitoring is in progress.

Based on the estimated pipeline depth of 3 to 6 feet and the depth-to-groundwater and groundwater flow directions at the above-described sites, it is anticipated that contaminated groundwater could be encountered during construction of the NCP Reach Alternate Alignment near the Commercial Warehouse site (320 Coral Street). In addition, contaminated shallow soil at the Salz Leather site (1040 River Street) could be encountered during construction of the NCP Reach Alternate Alignment. Before construction commences for this alignment, site soils data should be reviewed, or the owners and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) be contacted to determine the status of these LUST sites.

Other sites identified in close proximity to the Project, but not listed above, included hazardous waste generators; facilities that contain USTs that are not known to be leaky, facilities that have undergone remedial action and have closed cases; or facilities in which remedial action was deemed unnecessary.

During pipeline reconnaissance performed in April and June 2002 by ENTRIX, an unauthorized trash dump was observed on the existing NCP Reach at p.d. 12,500 feet east of stream crossing NCP-05. The dump exists on top of the pipeline in a small ravine between Highway 1 and the Sunset Farmlands to the south. The dump was observed to contain glass bottles, aluminum and tin cans, animal bones, and oil and antifreeze containers.

13.3.2 Fire Hazards The Project area west of the City of Santa Cruz lies in a high fire hazard zone as determined by the CDF. The potential for fire hazards is greatest in the nonurbanized portions of the Project area that have dry vegetation. The Santa Cruz County General Plan has established policies concerning fire hazards. Roads are required to have adequate access for fire department vehicles. Additionally, precautions would be taken to prevent fires in areas of construction.

13.4 Potential Environmental Impacts

13.4.1 Thresholds of Significance Significance criteria were determined based on CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form). During the evaluation of potential environmental impacts from the construction or O&M of the proposed Project, an impact was considered significant if the Project would result in:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-3 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

• Creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials;

• Creation of 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;

• Emission or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within a quarter mile of an existing or proposed school;

• Project location on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to CCR (Government Code, Section 65962.5) and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment;

• Project location within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport, resulting in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area;

• Project impairing implementation of or physically interfering with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or

• Exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.

13.4.2 Impact Methodology The impacts analysis was conducted by (1) assessing proposed Project facilities for the potential use of hazardous materials and potential occurrence of other hazards (e.g., fire), (2) having a regulatory agency database search conducted to identify sites of concern near the project, and (3) reviewing files at selected regulatory agency offices based on the results of the database search. Potential hazards, including the exposure to hazardous materials, that could occur during the construction or O&M of the Project were then compared to established significance criteria to assess whether potential impacts were considered significant or less than significant.

13.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts Site conditions with respect to the potential presence of hazardous materials and susceptibility to forest fires are described in Section 13.3. This section summarizes the potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous substances. Much of the discussion that follows, especially for hazardous materials handling and fire during construction, is common to all reaches considered for the proposed Project. The minimization and mitigation measures (discussed in general below) would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. The reach-specific impact section addresses site-specific information that would affect the potential for particular impacts to occur.

13.4.3.1 Hazardous Materials Handling

Hazardous materials most likely to be used during construction would be gasoline, diesel fuel, oil, lubricants, solvents, and adhesives. There are no feasible alternatives to these materials for operation of construction vehicles and equipment. No acutely hazardous materials (AHMs) would be used or stored on-site during construction.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-4 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

Due to the low volume and low toxicity of the hazardous materials, the potential for environmental impacts from hazardous material incidents during construction is less than significant. Impacts to the environment could occur should there be a spill of a hazardous material (e.g., fuel) into sensitive soil, watercourse, or other habitat. To minimize the potential for impacts, a construction SWPPP would be prepared and adhered to. The plan would include establishing suitable re-fueling locations that would minimize the potential for spills to enter sensitive areas. With the pollution prevention plan in place, the most likely incidents involving these hazardous materials are associated with minor spills or drips which would result in a less than significant impact when they are properly cleaned up as called for in the plan.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for all hazardous materials used during construction would be on-site and available to construction personnel. As required by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), construction personnel handling hazardous materials would be trained to understand the hazards associated with these materials and would be instructed in the proper methods for storing, handling, and using these hazardous materials. Training for construction personnel also includes what steps to take in the unlikely event of a spill or accidental release.

Construction activities near identified groundwater and/or soil contamination sites listed in Section 13.3 have the potential to generate hazardous waste or create hazardous conditions for workers and the environment. Digging in areas with soil contamination may produce contaminated soil waste that would need to be disposed of properly. Digging in areas that have a shallow water table with contaminated groundwater may produce contaminated wastewater that may need to be pumped out and disposed of. If project construction occurs in the vicinity of these sites, further investigation to assess the potential of encountering contaminated soil and groundwater would be conducted. If contaminated soil and/or groundwater are encountered during construction, mitigation measures including the use of personal protection equipment for workers and appropriate handling and disposal of soil or groundwater would minimize the potential for chemical exposure.

Three schools exist within one-quarter mile from the Project area. The Project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions beyond those contained in vehicle exhaust. However, if excavation near one of the previously identified potential hazardous sites is necessary, hazardous materials may be handled. Potentially hazardous waste would be handled in a manner to minimize exposure and would be properly disposed. The potential impacts from construction and O&M activities to a school would be less than significant.

Overall, potential impacts from construction and O&M activities would be less than significant with the application of appropriate mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are discussed below.

13.4.3.2 Safety Hazards Near Airports

The proposed Project is not located within the boundaries of an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of a public or public use airport. Therefore, there would be no impacts from construction and O&M activities associated with airport-related safety hazards for people residing or working in the Project area.

13.4.3.3 Interference with Emergency Response or Evacuation Plans

The Project is not expected to impair implementation or physically interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans including fire vehicle access. During the construction phase of the Project, construction activities may result in temporary road closures/delays in the county and the City, and on

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-5 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste private access roads. These road closures/delays could temporarily impact the ability of emergency services to respond to emergency calls. To minimize this impact, the City would work with the county and emergency services to provide access, as needed, to emergency vehicles. Caution would be taken to ensure that, wherever possible, roadways are not blocked and allow the passage of emergency response vehicles or for evacuation. This potential impact would occur across all pipeline reaches and vary in severity between reaches depending on the need for road closures. Site-specific impacts related to the interference with emergency response and evacuation plans and associated mitigation measures are described in Chapter 15, Public Services and Utilities. Road closures/delays are discussed in the reach-specific sections of Transportation and Traffic (Chapter 14).

13.4.3.4 Fire Hazards

The proposed Project is located mostly in unpopulated areas, with a small portion occurring in urban areas. The Project would not result in construction of habitable structures or new development within wildland areas subject to fire hazards, however much of the work would occur in areas of dry vegetation that may be prone to wildland fires. Precautions would be taken to reduce the hazards of fire. Vehicles and construction equipment would be used with caution to prevent engines from igniting dry vegetation and crews would be trained in proper response should an incident occur. Additionally, periodic visual monitoring of construction areas would be conducted to identify any smoke, should a hazard exist. Special precautions would be identified and taken to minimize the potential for fires resulting from the welding and fusing processes necessary for linking sections of pipeline together.

BMPs would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for accidental spills or fires involving the use of hazardous materials to less than significant levels. Examples of some of these include the following.

• A fuel truck would bring fuel to the designated re-fueling location and directly refuel construction equipment. Refueling would occur in a contained area designed for this purpose and properly located to minimize potential spills into sensitive areas. Fire extinguishers would be located near the refueling containment area.

• All gasoline or diesel refueling would be conducted using air quality management district (AQMD) permitted and National Fire Protection Administration (NFPA) approved storage tanks, pumps, hoses, and nozzles.

• Smoking, open flames, or welding would not be allowed in or near the refueling or maintenance service areas. The refueling area would be posted with “No Smoking” signs.

• All refueling or maintenance operations would be performed away from drains, culverts, stormwater runoff collection, and stream crossing areas to prevent contamination of local water bodies in the event of an accidental release of hazardous material.

• Minor spills would be cleaned up immediately and any contaminated soil would be disposed of properly.

Tables 13-1 and 13-2 include a summary of potential hazard/hazardous waste impacts.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-6 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

13.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the specific Project sites within the Project area. These sites are divided between the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. In general, the diversion structures or pipeline reaches are discussed only if an impact may potentially occur for that specific site.

Because there would be no planned construction under the No Project Alternative for all diversion structures/pipeline reaches, no impacts related to construction would occur. Additionally, no significant impacts related to ongoing O&M are expected under this alternative. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required. For these reasons, this alternative is not further discussed below.

At diversion structures and pipeline reaches under the existing and alternate alignment alternatives, the potential release or spill of hazardous materials could occur as a result of construction activities. The release or spillage of fuel or other hazardous materials may represent a threat to human health or the environment. It is anticipated that a small staging area would be located at each diversion and refueling operations may be conducted in this area. Staging areas would also support construction activities for the pipeline reaches where re-fueling operations may be conducted. Exposure of hazardous materials to humans may lead to adverse health conditions. Also, hazardous materials can harm fish, wildlife, and surface water/groundwater quality if released in close proximity to sensitive habitat (e.g., near the creek) or if allowed to infiltrate into the subsurface. Overall, impacts from a potential hazardous materials spill would be less than significant. However, if a hazardous materials spill were to occur in close proximity to sensitive habitat, potential impacts could occur. Implementation of Mitigation 13-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. This impact is discussed in more detail for Laguna and Majors reaches.

Potential fire could occur as a result of construction and O&M activities at the diversion structures and pipeline reaches under all alternatives except the No Project Alternative. Because this potential impact could occur at all diversion structures and pipeline reaches, it is not discussed further below for all structures/reaches, with the exception of Majors Reach. A fire could inadvertently be set during construction and O&M activities. Considering that the Project lies within a high fire hazard zone, the fire hazard represents a threat to both construction and O&M workers/crews and the surrounding environment. Implementation of Mitigation 13-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Appropriate BMPs (see Section 13.4.1) would also be implemented.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Hazards Impact R-1, Hazards Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Hazards Impact 1-1, Hazards Impact 1-2, etc.

13.5.1 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna The potential for the release or spill of hazardous materials to occur in aquatic habitat (sensitive habitat) would be reduced for the Alternate Alignment Alternative (two crossings) compared to the

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-7 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

Existing Alignment Alternative which has more stream crossings (four crossings). Mitigation 13-1 would be implemented to reduce any potential impacts that may occur.

13.5.2 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

13.5.2.1 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hazards Impact 4-1: Potential fire could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

A fire could inadvertently be set during the construction activities. Considering that the project lies within a high fire hazard zone, the fire hazard represents a threat to both construction workers and the surrounding environment.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 13-2 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact. However, the first 8,000 feet of the existing alignment would be constructed on steep slopes in redwood and evergreen broadleaf forest habitats. Access to the existing alignment downslope from the access road would be difficult. The use of heat or flame-generating equipment for materials and equipment transport and/or pipe fabrication may pose a potentially significant fire hazard. Appropriate precautions would need to be taken to minimize fire hazards and provide rapid emergency response capabilities.

13.5.2.2 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment and Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Hazards Impact 4-2: Potential release or spill of hazardous materials could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

It is anticipated that the pump station proposed for installation at the Majors Diversion site to lift water to the ridge top area would require a gas powered or diesel backup generator. The generator would only be used during emergencies. However, fuel would need to be stored onsite for immediate operation. Therefore, a fuel spill could potentially occur.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 13-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. Precautions could be taken in the design of the generator housing to minimize the potential for a spill into Majors Creek.

13.5.3 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

13.5.3.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hazards Impact 5-1: Potential exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-8 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste

The NCP Reach passes through an unauthorized trash dump, which potentially could contain hazardous substances, observed along the existing alignment in a ravine near Sunset Farms. Visual observation of this site indicated the presence of glass bottles, aluminum cans, animal bones, oil containers, and antifreeze containers. If these hazardous substances are encountered during construction activities (e.g., trenching), construction workers could be exposed. Additionally, the soil and groundwater removed from trenches may require disposal at an appropriate disposal facility.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 13-3 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact. Re-routing around or directionally drilling under this trash dump may avoid potential impacts, until some degree of characterization is completed. Work in this area would be considered to pose a potentially significant hazard to workers and any biological resources present.

13.5.3.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Hazards Impact 5-2: Potential exposure to contaminated soil and groundwater could occur as a result of the construction of the pipeline.

In addition to those hazards associated with the existing NCP Reach alignment (e.g., the unauthorized landfill), the five LUST sites are found along this alternative alignment. If these hazardous substances are encountered during construction activities (e.g., trenching), construction workers could be exposed. Additionally, the soil and groundwater removed from trenches may require disposal at an appropriate disposal facility.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 13-3 (below) would reduce the severity of this potential impact. If possible, these sites would be avoided. Impacts associated with the LUST sites and unauthorized landfill would be considered potentially significant.

13.5.4 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 13-1: The City shall ensure that a SWPPP is prepared and adhered to during construction activities. The SWPPP would include establishing suitable re-fueling locations that would minimize the potential for spills to enter sensitive areas. As required by OSHA, construction personnel handling hazardous materials would be trained to understand the hazards associated with these materials and would be instructed in the proper methods for storing, handling, and using these hazardous materials.

Mitigation 13-2: The City shall ensure that appropriate measures would be taken to minimize the risk of fire. Vehicles and construction equipment would be used with caution to prevent engines from igniting dry vegetation, and crews would be trained in proper response should an incident occur. Special precautions would be identified and taken to minimize the potential for fires resulting from the welding and fusing processes necessary for linking sections of pipeline together. BMPs would be implemented during construction to reduce the potential for accidental spills or fires involving the use of hazardous materials to less than significant levels.

Mitigation 13-3: If excavation must occur in the LUST sites and in areas containing hazardous materials, the City shall develop a suitable Soil and Groundwater Management Plan (SGMP) to minimize and mitigate for potential impacts. The City shall ensure that appropriate monitoring is conducted during construction. If contaminated soil and groundwater are encountered during construction activities, these will be handled appropriately according to the SGMP. Additionally,

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-9 13.0 Hazards and Hazardous Waste appropriate precautions would be taken to protect workers from potential chemical exposure and physical injury while working at these locations. One potential precautionary measure would be to design a vapor barrier for the portion of the affected pipeline. For the unauthorized trash dump site, the City could contact the landowners and request access to the site and request that the site be cleaned prior to construction if extensive excavation must occur in the vicinity of the site.

13.5.5 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 13-10 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter presents existing transportation conditions in the Project area and potential transportation impacts associated with the proposed Project. Highway 1 is the main regional access to Santa Cruz County’s major urban areas. The pipeline reaches of the proposed Project are located in the western portion of the county. Major roads in this area include Bonny Doon Road, Smith Grade Road, Laguna Road, Highway 9, Meder Street, and High Street. Smaller access roads in the Project area include rural roadways and private drives that are typically unpaved. The Union Pacific Railroad operates a freight line along the coast between Watsonville and Davenport parallel to Highway 1. The rail line has no passenger service and the existing NCP Reach does not cross the railroad.

The following section describes regulatory considerations that apply to the Project and existing traffic conditions in the Project area. A discussion of existing traffic conditions by project reach includes descriptions of roads, traffic volumes, parking conditions, and transit services. The impact section presents the threshold of significance used to evaluate construction-related and O&M-related impacts.

14.1.1 Regulatory Considerations

14.1.2 Local Regulations Santa Cruz County General Plan – The Circulation Element of the Santa Cruz County General Plan (Santa Cruz County 1994a) describes planning goals and design standards for the road network in Santa Cruz County. These planning standards include a functional street classification for urban roads within the county. The Project area falls under two planning areas in the General Plan: Bonny Doon and City of Santa Cruz.

14.2 Existing Transportation and Traffic Conditions

14.2.1 Roads Existing roadways in the Project area include state highways, county roads, City streets, and private roads and drives. All existing pipeline routes, with the exception of the NCP Reach, would be accessed through county roadways and private drives. The majority of existing pipeline reaches are located in the county with a portion of the NCP Reach located within City limits. Table 14-1 presents the highways and roads that would be used for the proposed Project.

The following descriptions of roads related to pipeline reaches proceed from upstream to downstream for each pipeline reach and overall from west to east towards the City. Figure 14-1 illustrates the pipeline reaches and their relationships to the roadways.

Liddell – Project-related roadways within the Liddell Reach include a dirt access road to the south and the RMC Pacific Materials Quarry access road to the north, and Bonny Doon Road.

Laguna/Liddell – Project-related roadways within the Laguna/Liddell Reach include an unpaved access road to the TPL Coast Dairies property and Laguna Road.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-1 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

Laguna – Project-related roadways within the Laguna Reach include an unpaved access road to the south and Smith Grade Road to the north, and the private residential access road to the ridge between Laguna and Y Creek watersheds.

Majors – Project-related roadways within the Majors Reach include Majors access road and Highway 1.

NCP Reach – Project-related roadways within the NCP Reach include Highway 1, Dimeo Road, Meder Street, Cardiff Place (east of Bay Drive), High Street, Kelkar Drive, Spring Street, Ross Street, Orthalon Street, Meadow Court, Harvey West Boulevard, Pioneer Street, Golf Club Drive, Coral Street, Lime Kiln Street, Encinal Street, and Highway 9.

14.2.1.1 Circulation and Access Provisions

The access points for the Laguna and Liddell pipelines are through private roads off Smith Grade Road to the north. These private roads have no circulation information available. Smith Grade Road is a two-lane scenic road connecting Empire Grade Road to the east (into Santa Cruz) and Bonny Doon to the west.

Access to the Laguna/Liddell pipeline is provided by an unpaved access road, a private roadway, from Highway 1. Access to Majors pipeline is provided by the Majors access road, also a private roadway, from Highway 1.

Highway 1 lies within the Project area from the start of the NCP Reach at the inlet of the Laguna/Liddell Reach, and runs east to Wilder Creek. Highway 1 is a two-lane highway with beach access to the south and undeveloped parking areas along the beach access routes.

14.2.1.2 Traffic Volumes

Traffic volumes for Highway 1 and Highway 9 in the Project area are recorded by Caltrans. No traffic volume information is available for private roadways along the Laguna, Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, and Majors pipeline reaches. The Transportation Engineering Department (TED) of the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department collects traffic count data for High Street, Coral Street, and Meder Street. This information is presented below in Table 14-2.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) at the junction of Highway 1 and Highway 9 is 23,600 vehicles per day. The westbound AADT on Highway 1 where it turns into Mission Street is 55,000 vehicles per day and the eastbound AADT at this intersection is 66,000.

Highway 1 traffic volumes were also measured beyond the Santa Cruz City limits in the county. Caltrans data are available for the “north city limits,” where the highway exits the City of Santa Cruz and enters the county to the west. Peak-hour traffic at this location is 1,700 vehicles per hour, and AADT at this location is 12,300 vehicles. The direction associated with this data was not available. Traffic volumes are also recorded at the intersection of Highway 1 and Bonny Doon Road. Peak-hour traffic at this location is 1,800 vehicles and the AADT at this location is 10,000 vehicles.

High Street eastbound traffic between Bay Drive and Western Drive has a peak hourly rate of 442 vehicles and an AADT count of 5,342 vehicles. Bay Drive westbound traffic has a peak hourly rate of 448 vehicles and an AADT count of 4,616 vehicles.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-2 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

Coral Street westbound traffic between Lime kiln and River Street (Highway 9) has a peak hourly traffic rate of 20 vehicles and an AADT count of 169 vehicles. Eastbound traffic on Coral Street has a peak hourly rate of 286 vehicles and an AADT count of 2,848 vehicles.

Meder Street at Nobel Drive, eastbound, has a peak hourly rate of 102 vehicles and an AADT count of 1,147 vehicles. Westbound traffic has a peak hourly rate of 93 vehicles and an AADT count of 948 vehicles.4

14.2.1.3 Parking Conditions

There are no developed parking facilities along the Project route. Parking along the Project route primarily consists of on-street parking within residential areas. While there are no designated parking lots within the Project area along Highway 1, areas along this route near public beach access points are used for parking, mostly for beach access.

14.2.1.4 Transit Service

Transit service within Santa Cruz County is provided by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transportation District (Metro). Metro offers public transit services including 50 fixed-route bus services, the Highway 17 express service to San Jose, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Paratransit Service for the disabled and elderly.

Three bus routes cross or travel along the existing project pipeline route in the City. Route 10 runs along High Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Cardiff Place and Highway 1. Route 2 runs along Meder Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Reese Lane and Bay Drive. Route 4 traverses on Harvey West Boulevard and DuBois Street along its route and the existing pipeline ROW crosses this intersection diagonally.

14.3 Potential Transportation and Traffic Impacts

14.3.1 Thresholds of Significance In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on transportation if it were to result in any of the following:

• A substantial increase in vehicle trips on local roads that would substantially disrupt or alter local circulation patterns.

• Lane closures or impediments that would substantially disrupt or alter local circulation patterns.

• Improperly managed construction activities that would create potential safety hazards.

• Increased conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle routes or fixed-route transit.

14.3.2 Impact Methodology Research on available traffic information provided by Caltrans and the TED was conducted to determine current traffic volumes. Potential impacts to transportation and traffic were determined by

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-3 14.0 Transportation and Traffic evaluating whether the addition and duration of Project construction and operation-related traffic over the baseline data would significantly disrupt existing traffic.

14.3.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The traffic impacts of the proposed Project are limited to construction activities and are temporary in nature. In addition, construction of the proposed Project is anticipated to be spread over a 15- to 20- year period, resulting in short-term periodic increases from project-related construction traffic. The movement of equipment and construction workers for each element of the proposed Project could contribute to short-term periodic congestion on local roads and Highway 1.

Work shifts and equipment delivery schedules should be planned to avoid the morning and afternoon peak hours, as necessary, to reduce potential traffic impacts. Several alternatives would involve construction on two-lane roads (e.g., Smith Grade Road) or on private roads, typically one-lane, residential access roads. Construction of this nature would impact access for local residents. Coordination with the county and area residents would be particularly important to maintain access for local and emergency traffic. Construction within the City for replacement of the NCP Reach would cross urban areas and would require close coordination with the City Public Works Department to carry out needed partial or full street closures. To the extent possible, pipeline construction within the City would be coordinated with other City construction projects. While local traffic movement may be interrupted and/or inconvenienced, the duration would be temporary. Construction activities are also not expected to increase potential safety hazards throughout the pipeline reaches and diversion structures. Tables 14-3 and 14-4 summarize potential reach-specific street impacts during construction.

14.4 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts for the proposed Project including all alternatives that are expected to have impacts. Potential construction and O&M impacts are described for actions at each of the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches, only if significant impacts are anticipated to occur.

Because there would be no planned construction under the No Project Alternative for all diversion structures and pipeline reaches, no impacts related to construction would occur. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required. Similarly, O&M activities would not be expected to change and therefore would not result in significant impacts.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Transportation and Traffic Impact R-1, Transportation and Traffic Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Transportation and Traffic Impact 1-1, Transportation and Traffic Impact 1-2, etc.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-4 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.4.1 Reggiardo Diversion Structure

14.4.1.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Operations and Maintenance-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact R-1: O&M activities of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

O&M-related traffic would increase overall traffic on Smith Grade Road, Laguna Road, Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, and other local streets. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.2 Laguna Diversion Structure

14.4.2.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact L-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic would increase truck traffic on Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, and Smith Grade Road to the diversion. While movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle trips on these roads, no road closures are anticipated. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.3 Majors Diversion Structure

14.4.3.1 Alternative 2 – Repair Alternative

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact M-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic would increase truck traffic on Highway 1 and along the dirt access road. While movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle trips on these roads, no road closures are anticipated for this alternative. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-5 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.4.4 Pipeline Reach 1 – Liddell

14.4.4.1 LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 1-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic would impact Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, the access road to RMC Pacific Materials Quarry, and the private access roads off Laguna Road. Movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle trips to these roads. Traffic coordination would be conducted with RMC Pacific Materials Quarry operations. Three staging areas would likely be located along this reach: two near the top of the pipeline reach and one located 2,000 feet north of the Laguna/Liddell junction. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.4.2 LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Construction-related impacts and mitigation under this alternative would be the same as those described for Alternative 2 above.

14.4.5 Pipeline Reach 2 – Laguna/Liddell

14.4.5.1 LAG/LID Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 2-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic would consist of equipment and materials delivery and worker traffic on Highway 1, Laguna Creek Road, and private access roads off Laguna Road (both east-side and west- side). Movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle traffic to these roads on a temporary basis.

Work along a private access road off Laguna Creek Road east would require temporary traffic control that would be coordinated with the county and local residents. Access for local residents and emergencies would be maintained throughout the construction period. Staging would most likely be conducted from the large staging area along Highway 1. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-6 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.4.5.2 LAG/LID Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 2-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic consists of equipment delivery and worker traffic on Highway 1, Laguna Creek Road, and a private access road off Laguna Creek Road (west-side only). Work along the private access road off Laguna Creek Road (east) would require temporary traffic control that would be coordinated with the county. Currently, there are no residences at the end of the private road. Staging would most likely be conducted from the large staging area along Highway 1. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would help reduce any related traffic congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.6 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

14.4.6.1 LAG Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 3-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, increased traffic hazards, or road closures.

Construction-related traffic would increase on Smith Grade Road, Laguna Road, Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, and other local streets. One-way controls or road closures are anticipated along Smith Grade Road from the diversion to approximately 1,500 feet east during replacement of the pipeline in this section. Traffic control would be coordinated with the county and local residents. Local resident and emergency access would be maintained throughout the construction period. Staging would most likely be conducted from the small staging area at the junction of the Laguna and Liddell pipelines and at the Laguna Diversion. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would reduce congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.6.2 LAG Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 3-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, increased traffic hazards, or road closures.

Construction-related traffic would increase on Highway 1, Bonny Doon Road, Smith Grade Road, Laguna Creek Road, the private road along the alignment, and other local roads to access the work site. One-way controls or road closures are anticipated along Smith Grade Road and the private access road during the replacement of the pipeline. The timing of the road control or closure would be

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-7 14.0 Transportation and Traffic coordinated with the county and local residents to minimize traffic impact. Local resident and emergency access would be temporarily disrupted throughout the construction period. Staging would most likely be conducted from the small staging area at the junction of the Laguna and Liddell pipelines and at the Laguna Diversion. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak- hour traffic would reduce congestion.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would help to reduce the level of this potentially significant impact. However, impacts to local residents along the private access road are expected to be significant.

14.4.7 Pipeline Reach 4 – Majors

14.4.7.1 MAJ Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 4-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic consists of equipment delivery and worker traffic on Highway 1 and the Wilder Ranch State Park access road off Highway 1. A large staging area could be located along the Majors access road, approximately 2,000 feet north of the junction between Majors pipeline and the NCP Reach. Movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle trips on these roads. No road closures are anticipated for this alternative. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would reduce congestion. If the western portion of Wilder Ranch State Park is developed and opened to public access, traffic impacts may be potentially significant depending on the user levels.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.7.2 MAJ Alternative 3 – Ridge Top Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 4-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic consists of equipment delivery and worker traffic on Highway 1 and the non-public access road off Highway 1 at Wilder Ranch State Park. A large staging area could be located along the Majors access road, approximately 2,000 feet north of the junction between Majors pipeline and the NCP Reach. Movement of equipment and workers would increase vehicle trips on these roads. One-way controls or road closures are anticipated during the replacement of the pipeline. The timing of the road control or closure would be coordinated with the county to minimize traffic impact. Timing of material deliveries and worker shifts to avoid peak-hour traffic would reduce congestion. If the western portion of Wilder Ranch State Park is developed and opened to public access, traffic impacts may be potentially significant depending on the user levels.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-8 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.4.7.3 MAJ Alternative 4 – Road Alignment

Same as Ridge Top Alignment (MAJ Alternative 3) – See above.

14.4.8 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

14.4.8.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 5-1: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Construction-related traffic (equipment delivery and worker traffic) would increase on Highway 1 at the large staging area, the non-public access road off of Highway 1 at Wilder Ranch State Park, Highway 9, Laguna Creek Road, Mission Street, West Street, and other City streets. Traffic would increase at entrances to potential staging areas at Sunrise Farms or the City of Santa Cruz Landfill on Dimeo Road.

Construction-related traffic (equipment delivery and worker traffic) would increase along the pipeline route. Depending on the construction-related traffic origin, the increase in traffic would be significant through the City during morning and afternoon peak hours. Shifting delivery and work schedules away from morning and afternoon peak hours would reduce the impact of construction-related traffic volumes. Traffic coordination would be necessary with State Parks, Caltrans, County Public Works, local farming operations, and landfill and sand quarry operations. Partial street closures and traffic control would be coordinated with the City Public Works Department and the City Parks and Recreation Department.

Temporary road closures would likely occur along four major road crossings. These include: Laguna Creek Road, Highway 1 in two locations, and the Sand Quarry entrance road.

Streets within the City that would be impacted by project-related construction for this alternative include: Meder Street, Cardiff Court, Cardiff Place, High Street, Kalkar Drive, Spring Street, Orthalon Avenue, Meadow Road, Harvey West Boulevard, Encinal Street, Pioneer Street, Golf Club Drive/Roaring Camp Big Trees Railroad, and Highway 9 (River Streeet).

County-designated bikeways travel through the known Project area and would be impacted by project-related construction. Classifications of these bikeways have not yet been determined by the county. Known bikeways are located along High Street and Coral Street.

Three fixed City bus routes would be potentially impacted by this alternative. Route 10 runs along High Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Cardiff Place and Highway 1. Route 2 runs along Meder Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Reese Lane and Bay Drive. Route 4 traverses on Harvey West Boulevard and DuBois Street along its route and the existing pipeline ROW crosses this intersection diagonally. Coordination with the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District before construction would be necessary.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-9 14.0 Transportation and Traffic

14.4.8.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Transportation and Traffic Impact 5-2: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary increases in traffic levels, traffic delays, or increased traffic hazards.

Impacts during the construction of this project alternative would include an increase of traffic on Highway 1, Laguna Creek Road, Mission Street, West Street, Meder Street, Cardiff Court, Cardiff Place, High Street, Evergreen Street, Coral Street, Encinal Street, and Highway 9. Traffic would increase at entrances to potential staging areas at Sunrise Farms or the City of Santa Cruz Landfill on Dimeo Road.

Construction-related traffic (equipment delivery and worker traffic) would increase along the pipeline route. Depending on the construction-related traffic origin, the increase in traffic would be significant through the City during morning and afternoon peak hours. Shifting delivery and work schedules away from morning and afternoon peak hours would help reduce the impact of construction-related traffic volumes. Traffic coordination would be necessary with State Parks, Caltrans, County Public Works, local farming operations, and landfill and sand quarry operations. Partial street closures and traffic control would be coordinated with the City Public Works Department and City Parks and Recreation Department. Local residents that may be affected should be informed of the timing of potential traffic controls. This alternative has a reduced impact to residential areas.

Temporary road closures would occur along four major road crossings. These include: Laguna Creek Road, Highway 1 in two locations, and the Sand Quarry entrance road.

Streets that would likely be impacted by project-related construction for this alternative include Meder Street, Cardiff Court, Cardiff Place, High Street, Evergreen Street, Coral Street, Encinal Street, and Highway 9.

Three City bus routes would be potentially impacted by this alternative. Route 10 runs along High Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Cardiff Place and Highway 1. Route 2 runs along Meder Street and shares the existing pipeline ROW between Reese Lane and Bay Drive. Route 4 traverses on Harvey West Boulevard and DuBois Street along its route and the existing pipeline ROW crosses this intersection diagonally. Coordination with the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District before construction would be necessary.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 14-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

14.4.9 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 14-1: To minimize impacts of construction-related traffic and staging on normal vehicle traffic and area road use, the City of Santa Cruz, in conjunction with the contractor(s) for the proposed Project, shall prepare a construction traffic mitigation plan. This plan would address potential impacts related to construction traffic routes, construction equipment staging, construction

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-10 14.0 Transportation and Traffic vehicle parking road closures/blockages, detours, resident access to homes along Project area access roads, and emergency vehicle access during construction. This plan would be reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department prior to any construction or site preparation activities in the Project area. Elements of a mitigation plan would include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Designated Access Routes – Appropriate construction vehicle routes would be identified from Highway 1 along access roads for each of the pipeline reaches. These routes would be determined in advance and in coordination with the City, local residents, and emergency response personnel.

(2) Maximum Speed Limits – Maximum speed limits would be identified for trucks and heavy equipment traveling through residential neighborhoods adjacent to the Project area.

(3) No Weekend Construction – Construction activities in the Project area would be prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.

(4) Limited Travel During Commute Times – Construction vehicles would avoid, to the extent feasible, the peak commute hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM.

(5) Pedestrian and Bicycle Access (NCP Reach Only) – Bicycle and pedestrian access along the NCP Reach would be maintained during construction to the maximum extent feasible.

(6) Lane Closure/Blockage Timing – Lane closures would be limited to noncommute times, to the extent feasible, such as between 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM.

(7) Lane Closure/Blockage Monitor – A public safety monitor or flagperson would be present during all lane closures/blockages to regulate vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic through the construction zone.

(8) Signage – Warning signage would be visible during construction to alert motorists of potential lane closures/blockages and detours and to alert pedestrians and bicyclists of any safety hazards along the road.

(9) Local Resident Access – Provisions would be made to provide vehicular access to residences along pipeline access roads at all times during construction.

(10) Phone Number for Complaints – The City would post at least one sign during active construction containing the name and telephone number of the City staff person whom the public may contact to register complaints about construction traffic or access. The City would keep a written record of all such complaints and investigate the problems registered by the public within 24 hours of receiving the complaints.

(11) Emergency Vehicle Access – Emergency vehicle access would be provided at all times during construction. The local fire and police departments would be notified of the approximate time and duration of planned lane closures and appropriate detour routes at least 48 hours in advance of any road closures and detour routes.

14.4.10 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 14-11

15.0 Public Services and Utilities

15.1 Introduction/Region of Influence

This chapter addresses the public services and utility infrastructure systems located within the Project area, including stormwater, potable (drinking) water, wastewater, natural gas, electricity, telephone, and solid waste. The ROI for public services and utilities is the Project area, and other areas that would be disturbed during the proposed projects, as well as the utility customers served by the infrastructure within the ROI.

15.2 Regulatory Considerations

15.2.1 Federal Regulations Clean Water Act – The primary regulations relating to water services are associated with water quality. These laws and regulations include the CWA, which aims at preventing pollution, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The latter, enacted by Congress in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996, requires protection of drinking water and its source lakes, reservoirs, springs, and groundwater wells.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – FERC regulates prices, services, and the construction of the interstate natural gas pipelines in California. Although FERC regulates rates for wholesale electric power sales of electricity and transmission in interstate commerce for investor-owned electric utilities, power marketers, power pools, power exchanges, and Regional Transmission Operators, it does not regulate the physical construction of generation, transmission, or distribution facilities. Prior to September 2001, direct access to electrical generation was permitted and local municipalities, businesses, and institutions established contracts for power directly with the generators. Since September 2001, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has regulated electrical rates, distribution, and services.

15.2.2 State Regulations State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards – These agencies are responsible for the enforcement of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code). The Porter-Cologne Act deals with the potential discharges into water bodies that could result in a negative impact to water quality. The second agency is the Department of Water Resources (DWR), whose mission is the overall management of California’s water resources. The regulations overseen by DWR regarding water service availability include the Urban Water Management Planning Act and Senate Bills (SB) 610 and 221. The California Act, adopted in 1983, requires all urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan and update them every 5 years.

California Department of Education – This department establishes standards for school sites pursuant to Education Code Section 17251 and adopts school site regulations, which are contained in the CCR, Title 5, commencing with Section 14001. Locally, at the City and county level, school services are provided for and administered by the local school district, in compliance with the California Education Code.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-1 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

California Fire Code - Section 902.2.2.1 – This code requires fire apparatus access roads to have a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet. Other local regulations are related to health, fire, and building safety. These include the California Health Code, the California Fire Code, and the UBC, which are implemented at the local level by ordinances passed by Santa Cruz County. There are no federal regulations associated with the provision of fire service.

California Integrated Waste Management Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 40000 et seq.) – This act requires municipalities to divert 25 percent of their solid waste from landfills by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000.

California Public Utilities Commission – The CPUC regulates intrastate and local natural gas distribution facilities and services, natural gas procurement, pipelines, and production and gathering. In addition, regulations related to natural gas services at the local level include the California Building Code, the California Health and Safety Code, the California Fire Code, and their associated implementing ordinances of Santa Cruz County.

15.2.3 Local Regulations While both the federal and state governments gather and publish crime and other law enforcement statistics, there are no federal or state regulations associated with the provision of police services. However, the local police departments of the City of Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Soquel have established goals as to response time, based on the type of call. Because of the large rural area within its service area, the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Department does not have a countywide response- time goal. Within the cities where the Sheriff’s Department provides law enforcement services, the department has established response-time goals.

15.3 Existing Public Services and Utilities Conditions

The vast majority of the Project area, including Liddell Reach, Laguna Reach, and Majors Reach, and parts of the NCP Reach, are in unincorporated parts of Santa Cruz County.

15.3.1 Wastewater The rural portions of the Project area are currently not served by sewage treatment facilities and densities are maintained at a low level through county development ordinances. Sewage from areas of the project within the City of Santa Cruz is treated near Neary Lagoon, which also serves several unincorporated communities in Santa Cruz County.

15.3.2 Potable (Drinking) Water Rural residents in the upper watersheds typically pump groundwater from the Santa Margarita formation. A treated waterline from the City extends west along Highway 1 to at least the City sanitary landfill. City residents receive water through the City water distribution system.

15.3.3 Natural Gas Natural gas to the Project area is supplied by Pacific Gas and Electric via an underground pipeline system. Natural gas service for the area originates in Hollister and extends through Santa Cruz, continuing north to Davenport. Service from Santa Cruz to Davenport runs roughly parallel to

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-2 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

Highway 1. Several “taps” located along the Santa Cruz and Davenport segment of the main supply line carry natural gas to mostly agricultural residents on the northeast side of Highway 1. These taps serve approximately 40 customers, with each tap capable of serving between two and ten customers (M. Heckman pers. com. 2003).

15.3.4 Electricity Electrical power and telephone services are supplied to rural and City residents in the Project area via overhead electrical lines. These lines typically follow the residential access roads.

15.3.5 Police Services Police services are provided to the Project area by the County of Santa Cruz Sheriff’s Department and the City of Santa Cruz Police Department. The County Sheriff’s Department presently consists of approximately 137 sworn officers. These officers are dispatched from a centrally located radio dispatch in Santa Cruz. The Santa Cruz Police Department currently consists of 99 sworn officers (Community Assessment Report 2001). Police services in the City portion of the Project area are provided by two separate police beats: the West Beat (south of Harvey West Boulevard, between Coolidge and Highway 1) and the Central Beat (north of Harvey West Boulevard, between Pogonip Park and the Lorenzo River) (C. McMann pers. com. 2003).

15.3.6 Fire Protection Services Fire protection response services in the Project area are provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) and/or City fire departments within the incorporated cities. CDF stations serving the Project area include the Big Creek Station (Station 33), the CDF Davenport volunteer station (Station 37), the Felton station, and two CDF volunteer stations in Bonny Doon (Stations 32 and 34). The two Bonny Doon CDF stations are most likely to assist with calls that occur along Highway 1. CDF also has a mutual aid agreement with the City of Santa Cruz Fire Department (M. Decon pers. com. 2003).

15.3.7 Schools The Santa Cruz County Office of Education oversees the ten county school districts, which operate 64 elementary, secondary, and adult schools. Higher education is offered in the county at Cabrillo College in Aptos, and at UC Santa Cruz.

15.3.8 Waste The Solid Waste section of the Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works is responsible for the operation and administration of the county’s solid waste and recycling programs. The Solid Waste section operates the county’s two solid waste facilities: the Buena Vista Landfill west of Watsonville, and Ben Lomond Transfer Station near the town of Ben Lomond, 1 mile north of Glen Arbor Road. The Buena Vista Landfill is on 62 acres, 40 of which are being used for solid waste disposal. The landfill has adequate capacity to provide service to 2019. The peak maximum daily capacity of the landfill in 2002 was 789 tons of solid waste, based on an allowed 2 percent increase in capacity each year. The landfill currently receives an average daily amount of 395 tons of solid waste.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-3 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

The City Sanitary Landfill is located off Dimeo Lane, which intersects with Highway 1, approximately 3 miles west and north of the Santa Cruz City limits. It serves as the disposal site for solid waste generated in the City of Santa Cruz.

15.4 Potential Public Services and Utilities Impacts

Potential impacts to public services and utility resources are discussed and evaluated below. Also included are measures to mitigate or reduce the level of significance of each impact, where applicable. Impact methodologies and the CEQA significance criteria used to evaluate each impact are also included.

15.4.1 Impact Methodology Potential impacts from the proposed Project described in Chapter 2 were assessed in the following manner: by analyzing the components of each proposed Project against known locations of utility infrastructure and by consulting with representatives of the local emergency service providers in the Project area. Because the proposed projects would not generate additional demand for public services or utilities, or increase the infrastructure capacity, no evaluation of capacity was included in this analysis. The proposed alternatives were evaluated against the baseline conditions presented in Section 15.3 of this chapter.

15.4.2 Thresholds of Significance

15.4.2.1 Public Services

The evaluation of potential impacts to public services is based on the alternative’s potential to conflict with the existing or proposed public services in the Project area. In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on public services if it would result in any of the following:

• Violate the California Fire Code;

• Substantially restrict emergency service provider access to residences or business in the Project area; or

• Result in substantial delays for emergency service providers to the Project area.

15.4.2.2 Utilities

In this analysis, an alternative is considered to have a significant impact on utilities if it would:

• Disrupt utility service by damaging or relocating utility infrastructure;

• 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;

• Exceed the designated landfill’s permitted capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated from the projects in addition to the existing solid waste stream; or

• Violate federal, state, or local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-4 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

15.4.3 Summary of Potential Impacts The proposed Project involves replacement of facilities associated with the NCS. The construction and operation of any of the existing or alternative reach alignments would not result in any long-term adverse impacts to public services in the Project area. Additional or expanded public services would not be required as a result of the proposed Project.

During the construction phase of the Project, construction activities may result in temporary road closures/delays in the county and the City, and on private access roads. These road closures/delays could temporarily impact the ability of emergency services to respond to emergency calls. To minimize this impact, the City would work with the county and emergency services to provide access, as needed, to emergency vehicles. The potential impacts would occur across all reaches and vary in severity between reaches depending on the need for road closures. Road closures/delays are discussed in the reach-specific sections of Transportation and Traffic (Chapter 14).

The proposed Project and its alternatives would not require additional wastewater treatment, water drainage facilities, or additional water supplies. Solid wastes generated from construction activities would be removed by licensed haulers to either the Ben Lomond transfer station or directly to landfills as described in the environmental setting. Temporary road closures and traffic controls due to construction activities may temporarily impact emergency services, garbage services, and other services throughout the proposed Project area, particularly for residents along Smith Grade Road and Laguna Road.

In addition, the proposed Project would result in the temporary shutdown of portions of the NCS that transport raw water to the City’s treatment plant and therefore could temporarily affect the City’s water supply reliability. The overall goal of the project is to improve the reliability of the NCS. The City would ensure sufficient supplies exist to supply the City’s water needs during temporary, construction-related shut downs. Construction of the NCP Reach would need to be scheduled to avoid construction during critically dry times when the City’s need for North Coast diversion water would be critical. A summary of potential impacts on public services and utilities is included in Tables 15-1 and 15-2.

15.5 Site-Specific Impacts

Presented below are potential impacts resulting from construction and O&M activities for the various diversions and pipeline reaches within the Project area. These include the three diversion structures and the five pipeline reaches. Specific sites and associated alternatives are discussed only where potential impacts are anticipated to occur. If an alternative at a specific site is not expected to result in potential impacts, then it is not discussed below.

Because there would be no planned construction under the No Project Alternative, no impacts to public services and utilities related to construction would occur. Additionally, no significant impacts related to ongoing O&M activities are expected under the No Project Alternative. As a result, no mitigation measures would be required for construction or O&M activities. Under the No Project Alternative, the probability of pipeline failures is expected to increase with time, potentially resulting in more frequent and extensive emergency repairs.

Temporary road closures and traffic controls due to construction activities may temporarily impact emergency services, garbage services, and other services throughout the Liddell, Laguna/Liddell, Laguna, Majors, and NCP reaches. Closing or limiting access to segments of access roads in these

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-5 15.0 Public Services and Utilities reaches could limit fire suppression equipment access to residential structures. Segments of some of the access roads to Laguna/Liddell (existing alignment), Laguna (alternate alignment 1), and Majors (alternate alignment 2) reaches would be closed or access limited at different times to allow heavy equipment and work crews to access specific areas along the pipeline route. These closures would limit access to residential structures and fire suppression equipment adjacent to the closed road segments. This limited access could delay emergency services and cause the providers to exceed their response-time goals. Implementation of Mitigation 15-1 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant in most cases.

Note to reader: If there are potentially significant resource impacts, they are called out by both the specific diversion structure or reach being discussed and the impact number (listed consecutively). Impacts under specific diversion structures are labeled alphabetically. For example, Reggiardo Diversion will be labeled Public Services and Utilities Impact R-1, Public Services and Utilities Impact R-2, etc. (Thus, in these examples, the first number or letter represents the reach or diversion structure, and the second number represents the order listed.) Impacts under specific reaches are labeled numerically. For example, if Pipeline Reach 1 (Liddell) shows a potentially significant impact, it will be labeled Utilities and Public Service Impact 1-1, Utilities and Public Service Impact 1-2, etc.

15.5.1 Pipeline Reach 3 – Laguna

15.5.1.1 LAG Alternative 3 – Ridge Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Public Services and Utilities Impact 5-1: Construction could substantially restrict emergency service providers’ access to residences or businesses in the project area.

Construction of the pipeline along the one-lane residential access road between Smith Grade Road and the ridgeline between Laguna and Y creeks could restrict emergency service providers during daytime construction hours. This is the only road providing access to more than six residences along the road. Because this is a single lane road it would be closed to traffic during periods of the day while construction was underway.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 15-1 would reduce the level of this impact. However, these measures are unlikely to reduce this impact below a potentially significant level.

Public Services and Utilities Impact 5-2: Construction could substantially restrict emergency service providers’ access to residences or businesses in the project area.

Construction of the pipeline below ground in the private residential access road could require temporary interrupting of telephone lines/service, the residents water supply pipe, and garbage service.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation Measure 15-2 (below) could reduce this potential impact to a level that is less that significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-6 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

15.5.2 Pipeline Reach 5 – NCP

15.5.2.1 NCP Alternative 2 – Existing Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Public Services and Utilities Impact 5-3: Construction and replacement of the proposed Project facilities could require that existing utility infrastructure be relocated or temporarily shut down, resulting in interruptions in service.

Implementation of the proposed Project includes the construction and replacement of pipelines (above and below ground) and supporting structures. These facilities would be located in the vicinity of Highway 1 and in the City of Santa Cruz and may impact existing utility infrastructure (e.g., gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines). Although some design criteria and preliminary engineering design have been completed, specific design and engineering review would be needed to avoid possible damage to existing utilities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 15-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

Public Services and Utilities Impact 5-4: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact local school service.

Although there are a number of schools in the district, only a few schools would be directly affected by Project construction activities, specifically, near the east end of the NCP Reach. Where construction activities could occur immediately adjacent to school grounds, access and egress and school operations in general could be disrupted. This would represent a significant public service impact but would be short-term in duration. Following construction, there would be no impacts to school services and there would be no impacts from O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 15-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

15.5.2.2 NCP Alternative 3 – Alternate Alignment

Construction-Related Impacts

Public Servies and Utilities Impact 5-5: Construction and replacement of the proposed Project facilities could require that existing utility infrastructure be relocated or temporarily shut down, resulting in interruptions to service.

Implementation of the proposed Project includes the construction and replacement of pipelines (above and below ground) and supporting structures in the vicinity of Highway 1 and City of Santa Cruz and potential existing utility infrastructure (e.g., gas pipelines and electrical transmission lines). Although some design criteria and preliminary engineering design have been completed, specific design and engineering review would be needed to avoid possible damage to existing utilities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 15-2 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-7 15.0 Public Services and Utilities

Public Services and Utilities Impact 5-6: Construction of the proposed Project facilities could impact local school service.

Although there are a number of schools in the district, only a few schools would be directly affected by project construction activities. Where construction activities could occur immediately adjacent to school grounds, access and egress and school operations in general could be disrupted. This would represent a significant public service impact but would be short-term in duration. Following construction, there would be no impacts to school services and no impacts from O&M activities.

Mitigation Measures: Implementation of Mitigation 15-3 (below) would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant.

15.5.3 Recommended Mitigation Measures Mitigation 15-1: To minimize impacts related to restricted access for emergency services during periods of construction, the following measures would be included in the construction plan:

• The restricted access impacts would be addressed by the construction traffic mitigation plan described in Chapter 14. The City shall implement that mitigation plan to reduce the restricted access impacts to a level less than significant.

• A copy of the mitigation plan would be provided to the California Department of Forestry and the City of Santa Cruz, as well as any other fire/medical providers operating in the Project area.

Mitigation 15-2: The City would ensure that the construction contractor complies with the City’s guidelines for protecting existing facilities. These guidelines describe procedures for locating, protecting, and relocating existing underground utilities so that any service interruptions are temporary.

Mitigation 15-3: Construction impacts to schools would be mitigated as follows:

• Implement all traffic mitigation measures presented in Chapter 14; and

• To the extent possible, schedule potentially disruptive activities when the affected schools are not in session.

15.5.4 Effects Found to be Not Significant None identified for this resource.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 15-8 16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.1 Introduction

Chapters 3 through 15 present an assessment of potential adverse impacts to specific resources that could result from the proposed Project. CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of additional environmental issues associated with the proposed Project including:

• Significant Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

• Growth Inducing Impacts

• Cumulative Impacts

• Effects Found Not to be Significant

• Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

16.2 Significant Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.2[c]) require analysis of significant irreversible and irretrievable effects. Irreversible commitments include permanent damage to the environment that cannot be reversed. Irretrievable commitments include those that are temporarily lost but can be replaced either on site or off site after the project has been undertaken. This section is meant to convey any resources that would be lost either temporarily or permanently as a result of undertaking the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would result in permanent changes to the existing environment as discussed in other sections of this PEIR. In addition, the proposed Project would involve the consumption of energy derived from nonrenewable sources, such as fossil fuel. Building materials (pipeline components) could be considered permanently consumed, although these might be recyclable in part at some future date. These changes would be irreversible.

16.3 Growth Inducing Impacts

CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of growth-inducing impacts (i.e., foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment) of the proposed project. This discussion should include the characteristics of the proposed project that may encourage or facilitate future growth that, either individually or cumulatively, could significantly affect the environment.

The primary objective of the proposed Project is to confirm the most viable repair alternatives for the North Coast Pipeline System thereby, securing a more reliable water delivery system that is readily accessible for repairs and maintenance. Additionally, improving the system operation, maintaining the existing system capacity, and minimizing environmental impacts associated with system failures are secondary objectives of the proposed Project.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-1 16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.3.1 Direct Growth Inducing Effects Because the proposed Project would not result in an increase in water supply capacity to the NCS, there would be no direct growth inducing effects as a result of implementing the proposed Project. Further the proposed repair of the NCS pipeline does not include the construction of new hookups or additional pipeline reaches that would distribute water to areas that currently do not receive supplied water.

16.3.2 Indirect Growth-Inducing Effects The proposed Project is unlikely to lead to future growth or remove a barrier to growth. The proposed Project is intended to maintain a reliable source of water to meet current and future water needs of the City of Santa Cruz. As indicated in the IWP, the City’s water sources are sufficient to meet community water demand under normal and wet years. However, during drought years and prolonged periods of drought, the City’s supplies are insufficient to meet user demand. During drought conditions, the NCS sources are severely limited. Therefore, to ensure the reliability and efficiency of the NCS, the proposed Project is not expected to result in indirect growth inducing effects.

16.3.3 Regulatory Barriers to Growth Regulatory constraints on growth include such measures as restrictions on hookups to the existing raw waterline on agricultural lands, moratoriums on new development, restricted zoning standards, open-space designations in general plan and zoning regulations, and requirements for voter approval of changes in general plan designations or for specific types of development projects. At present, no such regulatory barriers exist with respect to the proposed Project site or the Project area. No changes in the existing land use and zoning designations would be required. No permits to develop the proposed Project would be proposed. Additionally, new residential or commercial development is considered highly unlikely in the undeveloped portions of the Project area, because the majority of these lands are encompassed in the Coast Dairies Property that will be administered by the Bureau of Land Management and in Wilder Ranch State Park.

16.3.4 Conclusion The objective of the proposed Project is to ensure the reliability and improve the efficiency of the City of Santa Cruz’s water supply by repairing one of the exiting water sources. Capacity of the pipeline would not be changed from its present capacities or distribution. Therefore, the proposed Project would not induce municipal or industrial growth and would not reduce physical or regulatory barriers to growth.

16.4 Cumulative Impacts

CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of significant environmental impacts that would result from project-related actions in combination with “closely related past, present, and probable future projects: located in the immediate vicinity (CEQA Guidelines, §15130 [b][1][A]). These cumulative impacts are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts” (CEQA Guidelines, §15355).

Cumulative environmental impacts are those impacts which by themselves are not significant but, when considered with impacts occurring from other projects in the vicinity would result in a total or

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-2 16.0 CEQA Considerations cumulative impact. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines, cumulative impacts result from minor, but collectively significant actions undertaken over a period of time and by various agencies or persons. However, "the discussion need not provide as great detail" as the discussion of the proposed project's effects but "should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness" (CEQA Guidelines §15130 [b][1][A]). In addition, reasonable mitigation measures should be discussed. However, CEQA acknowledges that "with some projects, the only feasible mitigation for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition of conditions on a project-by-project basis” (CEQA Guidelines §15130 [b][1][A]).

Related projects considered to have the potential of creating cumulative impacts in association with the proposed Project consists of projects that are reasonably foreseeable and that would be constructed or operated during the life of the proposed Project. The related projects considered in this environmental analysis consist of potential land development or public works projects that are planned, approved, or under construction, and could potentially contribute to similar environmental effects as the proposed Project. These projects include the RMC quarry expansion project, the future development of Wilder Ranch, the City’s management of Moore Creek Preserve, and the installation of the Bay Street Reservoir Transmission Main. The potential for impacts from any of these projects to combine with the impacts of the proposed Project would vary depending on the nature of the impacts and the characteristics of the project.

The City’s Water Department is engaged in a series of projects, including the proposed NCS Repair Project, that are envisioned in the City’s Integrated Water Plan (IWP). These projects are envisioned as system repairs and improvements that would ensure the reliability of the City’s existing water sources. None of these projects are designed to obtain access to additional water rights or sources of water. These projects are briefly described below.

Potential cumulative impacts of implementation of the proposed Project are discussed in subsections 16.3.7 through 16.3.14 for each resource area. These potential impacts are expected to be reduced to a less than significant level through incorporation of standard mitigation measures and additional site- specific measures that would be identified during subsequent site-specific CEQA review.

16.4.1 City Water Projects

16.4.1.1 Integrated Water Plan

The IWP provides a set of water resource strategies for meeting the needs of the City’s water customers over a planning horizon that extends through the year 2030. The objectives of the IWP are to: (1) reduce near-term drought shortages, and (2) provide a reliable supply that meets long-term needs while ensuring protection of public health and safety (Gary Fiske & Associates, 2003).

The primary water management problem presently facing the City of Santa Cruz is the lack of adequate water supply during periods of drought. In normal and wet years when rainfall and runoff are abundant, base flows in the coast and river sources are restored by winter rains. Storage in Loch Lomond Newell Creek Reservoir is typically replenished to full capacity with runoff from the Newell Creek watershed. Under these weather conditions, the water supply system is capable of meeting the community’s total annual water requirements.

The system is highly vulnerable to shortage in drought years, especially, when the San Lorenzo River and coast sources run low. In dry years, the system relies more heavily on water stored in Loch Lomond Newell Creek Reservoir to satisfy demand, which draws down the reservoir level lower than

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-3 16.0 CEQA Considerations usual and depletes available storage. In critically dry or multi-year drought conditions, the combination of very low surface flows in the coast and river sources and depleted storage in Loch Lomond Newell Creek Reservoir reduces available supply to a level that cannot support average dry season demands.

The proposed IWP includes improved water management (i.e., conservation programs), a maximum curtailment level on water use of 15 percent, and water supply development involving the construction of a 2.5-million-gallon-per-day (mgd) desalination plant (with a future capacity of 4.5 mgd). The program would thus provide a solution to the City’s projected water shortages during droughts, while also providing for the community’s water needs into the future. The IWP analysis assumes that the North Coast System is fully functional and that water losses due to leakage and outages are reduced to 1 percent. In addition, it assumes that the right of direct diversion is achieved for the Newell Creek and Felton Diversion water rights. Further it assumes that the full use of the Felton water right can be achieved.

16.4.1.2 Water Rights Conformance Proposal

The Water Rights Conformance Proposal seeks to add the right of direct diversion to the City’s Newell Creek and Felton water rights on the San Lorenzo River, rectifying an oversight in the original water right filings. License 9847 at Newell Creek Reservoir allows diversion to storage of up to 5,600 acre-ft per year (AFY) between September 1 and June 30. The Felton water rights allow diversion of up to 3,000 AFY to storage in the reservoir between September 1 and May 30th.

The Water Rights Conformance filings would bring the historical operations of these diversions into compliance with permitting requirements, rectifying an oversight in the original filings. The proposed direct diversion rights are limited to the same volume of water, purposes and places of use as the existing rights such that they match the existing rights to the extent possible while allowing direct diversion, consistent with historic practice. No new structures, construction activities, or land-uses are proposed for this action. The proposed changes would allow the City to maximize efficiency of water use, and does not seek an increase to the existing permitted and licensed water appropriations. The successful conclusion of this project would allow the City to continue to operate the Newell Creek Diversion and Felton Diversion as integrated facilities in accordance with past practice.

16.4.1.3 Felton Diversion Water Rights Time Extension Project

The City of Santa Cruz Water Department holds water right permits 16123 and 16601 to divert to storage up to 3,000 AFY from the San Lorenzo River at Felton. The City has been diligently putting water to beneficial use pursuant to these permits consistent with municipal water supply development. To date, the City has used over half the permitted amount. The City expects to need the full amount in the future. The time to put water to full beneficial use under the permits is presently scheduled to expire in 2006. The City is filing petitions with the SWRCB for extension of the time allowed for that purpose. The City manages its limited water supplies carefully to preserve water for droughts and plan for future demand in the water service area resulting from planned growth identified in the general plans for the City, County of Santa Cruz, and City of Capitola. The water supplies from the Felton Diversion are critical to meeting the projected future demand. They are also critical to the City’s ability to meet water demand during operational outages, changes in operations in response to environmental concerns, and droughts. Therefore, the City is seeking an extension of the time allowed to put water to full beneficial use pursuant to the Felton water right permits.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-4 16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.4.1.4 City of Santa Cruz Section 10 Permit Program

The City of Santa Cruz provides essential local government services for its citizens and visitors, such as water supply, waste management, storm water management, recreation, and open space. To ensure the City’s ability to provide services to the community currently, and in the future (e.g., next 30 years), the City is undertaking a Section 10 Permit Program pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). FESA and CESA require non-federal parties that engage in activities that are likely to result in “take” of listed species to obtain incidental take permits. The Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) will address the potential for “take” associated with a range of City activities conducted by the Water Department, Parks and Recreation Department, and Public Works Department. The HCP will address direct and indirect effects of City activities on a listed species and/or its habitat.

The HCP Area was defined to encompass a range of City activities, lands and facilities. The HCP area includes the City’s surface water diversion facilities, pipelines, open spaces, parks, and other public areas operated within the City limits. The HCP addresses effects on 16 species that are currently listed as threatened or endangered under FESA or CESA, or are considered sensitive at the state or federal level and are potentially found in the HCP area. The 16 Covered Species include four fish species (i.e., steelhead trout, coho salmon, tidewater goby and Pacific lamprey), one amphibian (California red-legged frog), one reptile (southwestern pond turtle), four avian species (brown pelican, Western snowy plover, osprey and marbled murrelet), two invertebrate species (Ohlone tiger beetle and Mount Hermon June beetle), and four plant species (Point Reyes horkelia, Robust spine flower, Santa Cruz tar plant, and San Francisco Popcorn flower).

The goal of the HCP is to minimize the potential for take to the maximum extent practicable. The HCP will analyze the potential for take associated with City activities and their best management practices and where appropriate, additional minimization (conservation) measures will be developed. Where these efforts are not sufficient to reduce the potential for take to reasonable levels, then mitigation measures will be developed as needed. The conservation measures associated with the HCP may result in changes in the City’s operation and management activities and could result in operational changes to the water system operations. For example, the changes may alter the season priority of source use or potentially reduce the City’s water supply. The amount of the potential water supply loss is unknown. Implementation of the HCP would result in benefits for listed species through more sensitive management and improved best management practices for the City’s operations and maintenance of public works, parks and recreation, and water supply activities.

16.4.2 Aesthetics The types of impacts on aesthetic resources that would occur with the proposed Project would mostly be related to project construction. Adverse aesthetic impacts would result from the construction/replacement of visible aboveground and partially buried facilities, such as pipelines, pump stations, and various vents and other ancillary facilities. A majority of the proposed Project facilities would occur in predominantly rural, lightly populated residential and open space/park areas, with a small portion of the construction occurring in more heavily populated, industrial settings. Some visual impacts associated with O&M mowing on the marine terraces are likely to occur. While pipeline facilities located in rural or open space areas can create substantial visual contrasts with their settings, no other projects are anticipated in the immediate area of the existing pipeline facilities. This fact combined with the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 6, cumulative impacts to aesthetics are anticipated to be less than significant. Additionally, visual impacts associated with other projects in the rural, open space and park lands are likely to be less than significant, because such impacts would not be consistent with missions of the California State Parks and the Trust for Public Land.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-5 16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.4.3 Agricultural Resources The proposed Project could result in soil compaction and a loss of soil productivity in areas of sensitive farmland, associated mainly with the Majors and NCP reaches. While much of the proposed Project would occur in predominantly rural, lightly populated residential areas, there would be no construction in areas of sensitive farmland resources, beyond those already affected by existing pipeline facilities. As a result, impacts to agricultural resources are expected to be minimal. Therefore, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project in Chapter 4, and if other projects implement similar mitigation measures, potential cumulative impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated to be less than significant.

16.4.4 Air Quality Construction activities associated with the proposed Project facilities could result in temporary, construction-period emissions of criteria air contaminants. Over the long-term, operation of proposed Project facilities could result in the creation of omissions from occasional use of emergency back-up generators and fugitive dust from infrequent maintenance vehicle traffic on dirt roads. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)-approved mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts to less than significant for all emissions. All construction and operation activities within the Project area would be required to comply with Federal and State air quality policies.

16.4.5 Biological Resources Implementation of the proposed Project could result in cumulative impacts to biological resources located throughout the Project area. Most impacts would be associated with the alignments selected, the methods of construction, and the time at which the construction is conducted, and would likely include the temporary disturbance to special-status species (i.e., steelhead and California red-legged frogs), aquatic habitat at stream crossings, terrestrial wildlife habitat, and sensitive riparian habitat. Cumulative impacts to the special status species are not likely to result in significant impacts to these species. In addition, impacts to sensitive biological resources are regulated by the USFWS, NOAA Fisheries, CDFG, USACE, and other agencies. Any potential impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from the proposed Project or other foreseeable projects in the area would require consultation with the responsible agencies and implementation of approved mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures. Implementation of these measures would be required as a condition of project approval; therefore, significant cumulative impacts to biological resources would not be expected.

It should also be noted that the preservation of the area’s biological resources is being addressed through the implementation of a habitat conservation plan (HCP). This plan will focus efforts on the area’s predominant habitats, woodland and forest series; riparian forest; coastal scrub; grasslands and artificial ponds; disturbed areas; and wetlands providing for their future preservation. The conservation of existing and future open space, along with restoration or enhancement of disturbed habitat provided by the implementation of the HCP would also serve to lessen the potential cumulative biological impacts for the proposed Project to less than significant.

It is anticipated that future development of the recreational resources on the Coast Dairies Property and the western end of Wilder Ranch State Park may result in impacts to biological resources and habitat loss in addition to those associated with the proposed Project. These impacts are likely to be spread out over a 15 to 20 year or longer period of development. This should allow adequate time for the effective implementation of mitigation measures that would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-6 16.0 CEQA Considerations

16.4.6 Cultural Resources The loss or degradation of individual cultural sites and resources from the proposed Project and reasonably foreseeable future projects diminishes the cumulative scientific and cultural value of such resources in the area. Cumulative impacts could be reduced to a less than significant level or avoided by mitigation measures identified in Chapter 10, Cultural Resources, along with any mitigation outlined during project-specific analysis. Therefore, the proposed action would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources. It is anticipated that other projects in the area would follow similar mitigation practices resulting in a less than significant impact.

16.4.7 Geology, Minerals, Soils and Paleontology Geology, Minerals, and Soils

Proposed Project facilities and any other related projects could be constructed through geologic formations susceptible to slope failure and soil compaction as well as on sites with potential shrink and swell soils, or that feature soils with high erosion potential. Project-specific geotechnical investigations would be necessary as part of the design process to address these geologic issues and impacts. As such, all project facilities throughout the project area would be required to utilize standard engineering practices and meet design standards that would reduce the potential for these cumulative geological impacts to a less than significant level.

Paleontological

The proposed Project could result in disturbance of geologic formations with moderate to high paleontological resource potential throughout the project area. At the site-specific level, paleontological surveys would be required to determine the resource value for impacted areas. Monitoring by a qualified paleontologist would be required in areas where any grading may occur in formations of moderate to high resource potential. These measures would reduce any cumulative impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.

16.4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Construction of proposed Project facilities and other related projects in the project area could increase the potential for wildfires in the project area, depending on the time of year construction took place. This potential could be mitigated to a less than significant level through adoption of appropriate mitigation measures (e.g., development and implementation of Fire Prevention Programs or Emergency Response Programs for each project, as necessary). These programs would occur in consultation with local fire protection services.

Construction and operation and maintenance of the proposed Project facilities and any foreseeable future related project facilities could result in the exposure of workers or the public to hazardous materials due to disturbance of contaminated sites, or the unintentional release or spill of hazardous materials. These potential impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of approved mitigation measures, including: the thorough investigation of potential project sites prior to construction; clean-up of known contaminated sites; use of proper personal

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-7 16.0 CEQA Considerations protective equipment if contamination were encountered; proper use, handling, and storage of hazardous materials to prevent spills; and adequate emergency response procedures that would be implemented in the event of a release or spill.

Facilities associated with the proposed Project (mainly pipelines and supporting facilities) or other infrastructure projects in the project area could be vulnerable to acts of vandalism or sabotage. For example, the sabotage of a pipeline could result in potentially significant adverse impacts to public safety and biological resources. The implementation of appropriate security-related mitigation measures, such as burying pipeline facilities where feasible, fencing, and secured access points, would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level.

16.4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality The proposed Project, when considered with other projects in the project area, could result in cumulative impacts to water quality (stream sedimentation), due mostly from the potential of pipeline failure. Additionally, construction of the various pipeline reaches could result in increased erosion, mainly from trenching activities in canyon areas with steep banks. Such erosion can be destructive to the immediate area and can adversely affect downstream habitats (spawning habitat, wetlands, etc). However, it is assumed that any new construction associated with other projects in the proposed Project area would meet the same Federal, State, and local permit requirements as required for the proposed Project. These requirements would include mitigation measures similar to those identified in Chapter 8 (Hydrology/Water Quality). As a result, potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality are considered to be less than significant.

16.4.10 Land Use and Planning All of the proposed Project alternatives would be compatible with the existing and planned land uses in or adjacent to the project area. Additionally, the project related activities identified in Chapter 2 appear to be activities that would be allowable and compatible with the existing, planned, and adjacent land uses. Consistency with the City/County General Plans and the Local Coastal Program would be required for all projects. Implementation of mitigation measures identified for specific project actions would occur on a case-by-case basis, reducing any potentially significant cumulative impacts to a less than significant level.

16.4.11 Noise Noise impacts associated with the proposed Project would occur primarily during construction and would be short-term in nature. From a long-term operational and maintenance standpoint, noise from equipment or machinery operation would be mitigated to achieve the necessary noise limits established in City and County regulations for noise sensitive locations. Therefore, cumulative noise impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.

16.4.12 Public Services and Utilities No cumulative adverse impacts on public services and utilities would be expected from any of the proposed Project alternatives. In addition, any future projects in the project area would be required to provide for adequate utility service prior to their approval. It would not be expected that these projects would require more utility service than could be provided through the usual planning procedures. The proposed Project would only affect public services and utilities during the construction phase and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-8 16.0 CEQA Considerations related impacts would be short-term in nature. Therefore, the cumulative impact to public services and utilities is expected to be less than significant.

16.4.13 Recreation Recreational use of the North Coast area is expected to expand in the next 15 to 20 years with the development of public access to the Coast Dairies Property and the development of the western end of Wilder Ranch State Park. The proposed Project may adversely effect recreational activity in these areas depending upon the level of development and use achieved at the time of construction. It is unlikely that other reasonably foreseeable projects in the project area, could have adverse cumulative impacts on recreational resources in the project area because most of the foreseeable projects are likely to be recreation development projects. However, with the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures, such as restoration of disturbed facilities following construction, construction schedule communication, and seasonal controls on construction to avoid peak recreation periods, cumulative impacts to recreational resources would be less than significant.

16.4.14 Transportation/Traffic Construction activities associated with the proposed Project facilities would contribute to an overall increase in traffic volumes on existing access roadways in the project area. However, these impacts would be localized and temporary in duration. Following construction, the proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with traffic and transportation in the project area or with other foreseeable projects in the project area. As a result, potential cumulative impacts to traffic would be less than significant.

16.5 Effects Found to be Not Significant

CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various potentially significant effects of a project were not discussed in detail in the EIR (CEQA Guidelines §15128). This PEIR contains an analysis of the potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed Project.

The following issues are addressed in this document: land use, agriculture, recreation, aesthetics, geology, paleontology, soils and mineral resources, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, noise, air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, transportation, and public services and utilities. In addition, each resource chapter (Chapters 3 through 15), where applicable, identifies potential effects of the proposed Project that were determined not to be significant.

16.6 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Pipeline construction in remote areas will require truck and equipment traffic on several two-lane mountain roads and construction of the Laguna Alternative 3, Laguna Alternative 2 will significantly impact traffic for local residents along Smith Grade Road. Although several mitigation measures would be taken to minimize the impacts of traffic controls, construction along Smith Grade Road (Laguna Alternative 2 and 3) and local private residential roads (Laguna Alternative 3), it is unlikely that adverse impacts, such as temporary road closures could be mitigated to a less than significant level.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-9 16.0 CEQA Considerations

Construction of the pipeline for the NCP Alternative 2 (existing alignment) through the residential neighborhoods north of High Street would adversely impact local residential traffic and home use due to the close proximity of the pipeline to existing residences. Even with mitigation it is anticipated that adverse impacts could not be reduced to a less than significant level for construction traffic, noise and aesthetic impacts.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 16-10 17.0 Project Alternatives

17.0 Project Alternatives

17.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives

CEQA requires that EIRs contain an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project that would reduce or eliminate environmental impacts. Specifically, Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an EIR should “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA provides the following guidelines for discussing alternatives to a proposed project:

• The EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid significant effects of the project on the environment. “The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly.” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b)];

• The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. If there is a specific proposed project or a preferred alternative, explain why the other alternatives were rejected in favor of the proposal if they were considered in developing the proposal. “The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination.” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)];

• The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed. [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)];

• The specific alternative of “no project” “shall be evaluated along with its impact.” The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow “decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” The CEQA Guidelines also stipulate that the "no project" analysis “shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the (EIR) notice of preparation is published. . . as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans . . .” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)];

• If the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify the environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)];

• If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed;

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-1 17.0 Project Alternatives

• Under the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c), the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires an EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. “The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making.” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)].

17.2 Overview of the Alternatives Selection Process

The alternative selection process for the proposed Project involved the following sequence of steps:

(1) Identification of the project objectives;

(2) Identification of the potentially significant impacts of the project;

(3) Development of a list of alternatives;

(4) Development of evaluation criteria for feasibility;

(5) Evaluation of alternatives; and

(6) Identification of those alternatives that passed the evaluation and explanation of why alternatives were rejected as infeasible.

17.3 Objectives of the Proposed Project

As described in Chapter 2, the objectives of the proposed Project are to:

• Objective 1: Improve the reliability of the system by minimizing the potential for a system shutdown due to pipe failure. Replacement of old existing pipelines and supporting infrastructure would meet this objective.

• Objective 2: Maintain the system capacity by providing a reliable infrastructure to enable continued supply for the future. Upgrades such as pipeline replacement, diversion structure modifications, etc., would be designed to maintain the existing system capacity in order to meet this objective.

• Objective 3: Improve the system operation by repairing and upgrading several of the systems elements, including the addition of remote operation and monitoring capability at the diversion structures; modification of the diversion structures to improve sediment removal and transport from diversion impoundments; and pipeline re-routing or alternative alignments to avoid inaccessible terrain.

• Objective 4: Minimize environmental impacts related to long-term operation and routine maintenance of the diversion structures and pipelines.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-2 17.0 Project Alternatives

17.3.1 Potentially Significant Impacts The primary environmental issues associated with implementation of the proposed Project relate to construction of proposed Project facilities. Potentially significant impacts of the proposed Project, if mitigation measures were not implemented, were identified for the following issues: land use, agriculture, recreation, aesthetics, geology and soils, water resources, biological resources, cultural resources, air quality, noise, hazards and hazardous materials, traffic and transportation, and public services and utilities. A discussion of the potential adverse impacts and related mitigation measures is included in each resource chapter (Chapters 3 through 15).

17.4 Alternatives Considered

Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR consider a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of the proposed project. The range of alternatives required in an EIR, according to the CEQA Guidelines, is governed by the rule of reason and requires an EIR to evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Nevertheless, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained or whose implementation is remote and speculative. The CEQA Guidelines further require that the discussion focus on alternatives capable of eliminating significant adverse impacts of the project, or reducing them to a level of insignificance, even if the alternative would not fully attain the project objectives or would be more costly.

The alternatives associated with each of the proposed five pipeline reach alignments were evaluated in the alternatives screening process and were identified based on the alternatives selection criteria described below. With the exception of the Majors Reach, analysis of each pipeline reach included the following alternatives:

• No Project Alternative

• Existing Alignment Alternative

• Alternate Alignment Alternative

The Majors Reach also includes a second Alternate Alignment Alternative, in an attempt to avoid potential impacts to sensitive soils located on the coastal marine terrace.

17.4.1 Initial Alternative Screening Criteria Many of the existing Project facilities were built around the turn of the century, when little vegetation was present. Subsequently, many portions of the existing pipeline alignment are now surrounded by mature scrub and tree ecosystems, making replacement of the pipeline in those specific areas environmentally infeasible and cost prohibitive.

The proposed repair program is intended to evaluate options for the replacement of the aging pipeline and repair of the diversion structures to ensure a safe, efficient and reliable supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz. No additional pipeline capacity would result from the proposed Project and no new pipeline facilities would be constructed. Additionally, the proposed Project is more of a long- term maintenance and repair project than a new construction project. As a result, the initial alternative screening criteria looked at alternative pipeline alignments that would minimize impacts on the environment while serving as a viable, constructable supply source for the City.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-3 17.0 Project Alternatives

In order to be given detailed consideration in this EIR, an alternative must meet the following criteria:

• Potential alternatives must meet the project objectives of providing for reliable, safe, and efficient supply of water for the City of Santa Cruz;

• Potential alternatives must be able to make use of existing water sources and cannot rely on new water sources;

• Since potential alternatives must seek to minimize or avoid impacts of the proposed Project, alternatives must not have been determined, as part of previous, similar investigations, to be infeasible due to excessive environmental impacts;

17.4.2 North Coast Pipeline System Alternatives Screening Criteria Following the initial alternatives screening, the only remaining viable project and geographic alternative was a mix of potential pipeline alignments that were in close proximity to the existing pipeline and supply diversions. Within the proposed Project area, a number of potential alternate alignments exist. North Coast Pipeline alternatives were subsequently screened against the following criteria to determine if they were viable for further evaluation in this EIR:

• Potential repair alternatives in the project area must be configured to meet the following criteria:

− Located as near as possible to existing water supply sources.

− Located in areas where potential environmental concerns could be avoided or minimized, or located in an area of environmental concern only when required for a facility to fulfill project requirements; for example, the NCP Reach is the main supply line for the four other reaches and has its own special set of siting criteria that requires it to be accessible in certain locations.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-4 17.0 Project Alternatives

While the screening process resulted in the present project configuration alternatives, final individual pipeline reach configurations have not yet been determined.

17.5 Alternatives Considered and Dismissed

As noted in Section 17.1 “The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.” [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)]. Two alternatives for the Laguna pipeline were considered and rejected. These alternatives are briefly described and the reasons for their rejection is provided. When evaluating alternatives to be considered in the EIR, the Lead Agency may consider several factors including site suitability, economic viability, infrastructure availability, general plan consistency, regulatory limits, jurisdictional boundaries and proponent control over alternative sites.

17.5.1 Laguna Alternative 4 This alternative was similar to Laguna Alternative 3 and would have routed the pipeline along the private residential access road from Laguna Creek to the ridge top. This pipeline would have been routed to the northwest on to the edge of the TLP Coast Dairies properly adjacent to the ridge top resident’s property lines. The pipeline route would have turned to the southwest following the TPL property line down to the connection with the Liddell pipeline at the Y. Reconnaissance surveys along the TPL property line found the terrain to have significant topographic relief, and it was heavily forested with substantial undergrowth. Construction in this area would have been particularly difficult relative to the other alternatives for the Laguna Reach. In addition, this route would have required disturbance of a substantially greater area of relatively undisturbed forest compared to placing the pipeline in the exiting ROW or in the residential road. Therefore, this alternative was not given further consideration.

17.5.2 Laguna Alternative 5 During the scoping meeting held on June 24, 2004 the idea of moving the Laguna Diversion downstream in order to eliminate construction on the Laguna Reach was raised. This alternative to repair the existing diversion and replace the Laguna Reach pipeline was considered conceptually and then rejected for the reasons below. Additionally, this alternative was proposed primarily to eliminate the need to construct the Laguna Reach pipeline across private property in the existing alignment or along the residential access road over the ridge top.

This alternative would have the following potential advantages:

• It would potentially eliminate the need for the Laguna Reach pipeline, which is approximately 12,000 feet in length.

• Depending on the placement of the diversion, it could allow all of the stream flow to pass through the gorge and anadromous reach potentially providing some improvement in steelhead habitat. Placement of the diversion at the upper end of the anadromous reach would provide no improvement in anadromous reach habitat conditions.

On a conceptual basis, this alternative would have the following disadvantages:

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-5 17.0 Project Alternatives

• It would require that the City acquire property and access to a suitable site on the anadromous reach of Laguna Creek.

• Construction of a diversion in the anadromous reach would permanently consume steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, which are in short supply on Laguna Creek and limited by natural migration barriers.

• The diversion would need to be constructed in the reach most heavily utilized by California red- legged frogs.

• The diversion structure would be required to provide upstream and downstream passage for steelhead trout and potentially coho salmon, which is currently unimpeded. This facility would require a substantially greater degree of maintenance and operations monitoring than required for the current diversion and pipeline.

• The Laguna Creek Diversion provides some of the highest quality water available to the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. Placement of the diversion down near Highway 1 could substantially reduce the quality of the water obtained by the City. This is of particular concern given the unknown status of the materials accumulated (e.g., junk cars) on some of the private properties located near the mouth of Laguna Creek.

• Placement of the diversion near the mouth of Laguna Creek would increase the risk of decreased water availability during the dry season, as this would place the diversion downstream of several small diversions over which the City Water Department would have no authority or control.

• The construction and operation of a diversion and pump station near the mouth of Laguna Creek would likely be visible from Scenic Highway 1 and would likely impact the aesthetics of the viewshed for local residents.

Although this alternative would lessen the potential for private property impacts for one group of rural residents it would impose significant changes on the residents on the lower reach of the Creek. It has the potential for significant impacts on steelhead trout, coho salmon and California red-legged frogs. Most importantly this alternative was not consistent with the objectives of the project (ensuring the reliability of the quality and quantity of the North Coast System water supply), because of the potential impacts on water quality and the lack of control and regulation of other diversions on Laguna Creek. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed because it was not reasonably feasible or consistent with the project objectives.

17.6 Comparative Analysis of the Various Reach Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of potential effects of the five reach alternatives identified for consideration in this document, including the No Project Alternative. Alternative alignments, for all but the NCP Reach, were selected with the intent of reducing potential environmental impacts and/ or reducing the environmental permitting burden of constructing and maintaining the pipeline.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-6 17.0 Project Alternatives

17.6.1 Liddell Reach Comparison The existing alignment would replace the pipeline in close proximity to the current route except for a small realignment near the Y to eliminate the downstream-most stream crossing (LID-04). The Liddell alternative alignment would realign the upper most 1,500 feet of pipeline out of a ravine and keep it generally more accessible and adjacent to existing access roads. All additional components downstream of the proposed realigned portion would remain the same as the existing alignment project. While no differences were found in the overall significance determination for the CEQA resource areas, the following key differences do exist between the alignments.

• The alternative alignment would avoid work in a ravine and the potential need for new bench cuts and/or tree removal activities. Such actions would be in exchange for construction in existing roads and in an above ground area with steep slopes on highly erosive soils.

• The alternative alignment (pipeline along road and above ground on slope) would result in fewer environmental impacts associated with ongoing maintenance activities.

• The alternative alignment would result in easier access for installation of a sediment blow-off from the Liddell springbox. However, this system improvement could be implemented on either alignment.

• Permitting requirements under both alternatives would be similar.

17.6.2 Laguna Diversion Comparison The current diversion design traps sediment. During wet weather, the road conditions make it difficult to operate this facility to maximize sediment transport and optimize water diversion. Taking no action would not result in any impacts under CEQA, because the existing structure and operations would be considered the environmental baseline. However, the existing diversion and its operations and maintenance do have the potential to adversely affect conditions downstream of the facility. The proposed modifications would directly address existing operational and structural issues. This would allow a resumption of a more natural sediment transport regime, greater operational flexibility and responsiveness to changing hydrologic and water quality conditions. The impacts and benefits associated with completion of the proposed modifications to the diversion are summarized below.

• The dam is a potential historic resource and modifications to this structure could impact its historic value.

• Modifications would result in resumption of a more natural sediment transport thereby minimizing impacts on downstream habitat and potentially improving it.

• Automation of the spillway gate and diversion gate valve based on real-time monitoring of flow and turbidity levels would improve the efficiency and operation performance of the diversion.

• Short-term impacts to resources at the site would be associated with construction activities.

• Modification would require CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB permits and potentially ESA consultation with NMFS and USFWS.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-7 17.0 Project Alternatives

17.6.3 Laguna Reach Comparison The existing alignment would replace the pipeline in the current route except for the portion down gradient of the LAG-03 stream crossing where the pipeline would be replaced in or adjacent to the existing road rather than downslope towards the creek. This alternative to the existing Laguna alignment would avoid the steep areas of Laguna Creek Canyon and instead follow a private road to the ridgeline. This alternative would diverge at the top of the road, and follow an existing access road across pasture lands.

Impacts associated with the existing alignment are typically greater than those associated with the alternative. Below, the key environmental differences between the existing and alternative alignment are noted.

• The existing alignment has four stream crossings (3 on Laguna Creek and 1 on Y Creek) vs. two stream crossings (1 on Laguna Creek and 1 on Y Creek) for the alternative.

• The existing alignment has one very difficult stream crossing (LAG-03) that would be avoided by the alternative alignment.

• Sediment runoff and landslides from construction on the existing access road located along the steep slope in Laguna Canyon (existing alignment) could occur. However, there has been some major construction in this area, including road repair and the installation of a retaining wall, with no significant environmental impacts. If sedimentation or landslides were to occur during construction, impacts to aquatic resources (including two listed species) and riparian habitat, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality could occur. Because the alternative alignment would be located in a less steep area, this alignment would naturally reduce the potential for sediment mobilization and landslides.

• The alternative alignment may impact Ohlone tiger beetle habitat resulting in a potentially significant impact to terrestrial resources.

• The alternative alignment would require installation of a pump station at the diversion to provide the necessary hydraulic lift, although environmental impacts associated with the pump would be minor.

• The alternative alignment would result in a potentially significant impact to residents along the alignment due to temporary closures of an access road.

• Work under the alternative alignment would require CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB permits and ESA consultation with the USFWS and NMFS. However, Agency consultation would be more difficult under the existing alignment.

• The alternative alignment would require new easements for private lands as well as the Coast Dairies property.

17.6.4 Laguna/ Liddell Reach Comparison The existing alignment would replace the pipeline in the current route through the forested riparian corridor except for some minor adjustments. The alternative alignment would remain in the access road to Laguna Road where it would join up with the existing LAG/LID alignment and NCS trunk line. The alternative alignment would avoid the riparian corridor, wetlands, mature trees, and all

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-8 17.0 Project Alternatives crossings with potential steelhead and red-legged frog habitat. As a result, impacts associated with Biological Resources and Hydrology and Water Quality would be reduced under the alternative. Key differences between these two alignments include:

• Impacts to views associated with maintenance of an existing ROW across open and relatively undisturbed areas vs. installation in an existing dirt road.

• Four (4) stream crossings for the existing alignment (including two perennial crossings containing listed species) vs. one (1) ephemeral crossing for the alternative alignment (no listed species or valuable aquatic resources).

• Potential to impact riparian resources and large trees along existing alignment.

• The alternative alignment would require more construction in the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation, however construction would be along an ephemeral drainage.

• The existing alignment would require CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB permits and formal ESA consultation.

• The majority of the existing alignment is on Coast Dairies Property. Additionally, some areas are privately owned which may require additional easements. The entire alternative alignment would be located on Coast Dairies Property.

17.6.5 Majors Diversion Comparison The proposed Project would make no modifications and the alternative is to modify the structure to improve sediment transport, operation and stability of the structure. The existing diversion and operations of the diversion structure may currently be resulting in adverse effects to biological resources and hydrology and water quality by impeding downstream sediment transport. Key environmental effects associated with moving forward with the proposed modifications are presented below.

• The dam is a potential historic resource and modifications to this structure could impact its historic value.

• Potential to reduce quality of existing diversion pond for red-legged frog foraging habitat (requires formal consultation with USFWS).

• Environmental benefit from restoration of the historical sediment transport regime thereby improving, over time, habitat conditions for aquatic resources downstream of the diversion.

• Short-term impacts to resources at the site associated with construction activities.

• Modification would require CDFG, USACE, and RWQCB permits.

17.6.6 Majors Reach Comparisons (Ridge Top) The existing alignment would replace the pipeline along the current route from the Majors Creek Diversion through the forested areas along Majors Creek Canyon and finally to the NCP Reach near Gordola Creek. The Majors (Ridge Top) alternative alignment would extend to the top of the canyon

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-9 17.0 Project Alternatives ridgeline and then transition to below ground and continue along the south ridgeline along the top of the bluff. This alignment would then join the existing alignment at approximately p.d. 9,500 feet. Impact levels would be similar between alignments except for Aesthetics, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality. Key differences between the potential impacts associated with this alignment include:

• Long-term visual impacts are anticipated from the existing alignment (tree removal) and alternative alignment (new ROW).

• Sediment runoff due to new bench cuts and pipeline installation on steep slopes adjacent to Majors Creek for the existing alignment would result in potentially significant impacts to aquatic resources (including two listed species) and riparian habitat, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality.

• The Ridge Top alignment would greatly reduce the potential for sediment mobilization to aquatic habitat and would avoid the need to bore through the canyon wall.

• Potential impacts to Ohlone tiger beetle and the historic road could occur under the Ridge Top alignment.

• The Ridge Top alignment would require the installation and operation of a pump station at the diversion.

• ESA consultation would be required with both NMFS and USFWS under the existing alignment and may be required with USFWS under the Ridge Top alignment.

• Permits (USACE, CDFG, RWQCB) may be necessary if piers are required in the channel to support the pipeline in the existing alignment near the diversion. No such structures would be required under the Ridge Top alignment.

17.6.7 Majors Reach Comparison (Road Alternative) Similar to the Ridge Top Alternative, the Road Alternative would lift the water from the diversion to the top of the ridgeline, except that this alternative would follow the existing access road route. The pipeline would follow the access road, beginning from the canyon bottom to the top of the ridge, up to an elevation of approximately 600 feet (about 80 percent of the approximately 7,800 feet of pipeline reach). The pipeline would be constructed either as a buried pipe within the existing road alignment, above ground immediately adjacent to the road, or a combination of both methods. The Road alignment would then rejoin the existing ROW in the first tier marine terrace south of the cliff boring, bypassing the lower level marine terraces to the west. Due to the utilization of the existing access road, impact levels are expected to be less than those described for the Ridge Top Alternative. Key differences between the potential impacts associated with this alignment include:

• Substantially fewer trees would need to be removed under the Road Alternative, thereby minimizing long-term visual impacts.

• Sediment runoff due to new bench cuts and pipeline installation on steep slopes adjacent to Majors Creek would be reduced under this alternative. By utilizing the existing access road for pipeline placement, this alternative would lessen the likelihood for impacts to aquatic resources and riparian habitat, geology and soils, and hydrology and water quality.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-10 17.0 Project Alternatives

• The Road alternative would greatly reduce the potential for sediment mobilization to aquatic habitat and would avoid the need to bore through the canyon wall.

• Potential impacts to Ohlone tiger beetle and the historic road could occur along this Road alignment.

• The Road alignment would require the installation and operation of a pump station at the diversion.

• ESA consultation would be required with both NMFS and USFWS under the existing alignment and may be required with USFWS under the Road alignment.

• Permits (USACE, CDFG, RWQCB) may be necessary if piers are required in the channel to support the pipeline in the existing alignment near the diversion.

17.6.8 NCP-Santa Cruz Reach Comparison The existing NCP Reach alignment would replace the pipeline from the west side of Laguna Creek to the CPS except for 2 minor realignments: 1) under or around the small landfill at Sunset Farms and 2) through a field just north of Pogonip Creek. The NCP Reach alternative alignment would realign the eastern most 6,000 feet of the pipeline to avoid construction under existing residential neighborhoods. Overall, the impact determinations are the same for both the existing and alternative alignments although differences in environmental impacts do exist. Key differences include:

• Removal of one stream crossing (NCP-13, Pogonip Creek) in the alternative alignment.

• LUST sites are found along the alternative alignment increasing the number of potentially hazardous sites relative to the existing alignment.

• The types of impacts (e.g., noise, traffic, and public services) and the duration of the construction period would be similar under the Existing and Alternative Alignments. The magnitude and intensity of these impacts would be substantially reduced for the Alternative Alignment as compared to the Existing Alignment.

• Impacts associated with installation of the pipeline under existing residences would be eliminated with the alternative alignment.

• The alternative alignment would avoid construction in two City parks.

• Permit requirements would be similar (CDFG, USACE, RWQCB; ESA consultation with NMFS and FWS).

17.6.9 No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is required in accordance with Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA guidelines. This scenario assesses the conditions and consequences that could result if the NCS Repair Project were not constructed. This alternative assumes that no change in existing diversion or pipeline facilities would occur, as described in the resource sections of Chapters 3 through 15. The No Project Alternative would likely result in the least amount of environmental disturbance and have the smallest environmental foot print. No construction would occur under this alternative, and

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-11 17.0 Project Alternatives existing operations and maintenance would continue mostly unchanged. However, because much of the NCS (pipelines and supporting infrastructure) is over 80 years old and the project area is prone to seismic activity, the No Project Alternative could still result in significant impacts. Such impacts would be associated with pipeline leakage, pipeline failure, and sediment management at the diversions.

In the process of analyzing potential impacts associated with the proposed Project Alternatives, potential impacts to aesthetics, geology, hydrology and water quality, biological resources and public services were found to be possible under the No Project Alternative under certain conditions. Specific areas within these resources include seismic hazards, mineral resources, soil erosion/loss of soil significant resources, subsidence, depth to groundwater, groundwater quality, surface water flows, and surface water quality.

Aesthetics

Potential impacts to visual resources would continue to occur under the No Project Alternative. Current O&M activities involve mowing sections of the pipeline typically twice a year. Pipeline sections become readily visible following mowing activities. Potential impacts also could occur if a break in some portion of the pipeline requires major construction activities. Visual impacts could also occur from any gullying or erosion caused by uncontrolled flows spilling from a broken section of pipeline. Since the existing pipeline and supporting structures are quite old, it seems likely that major construction along some pipeline reaches may have to occur under the No Project Alternative. Construction conducted as an emergency repair may result in severe environmental impacts associated with erosion damage and pipeline repair in scenic areas.

Biological Resources

Potential impacts under the No Project Alternative are associated with the Majors and Laguna Diversion structures. The diversion structures currently impede downstream sediment transport on both creeks. Sediment transport can affect the balance of pools, runs, and riffles located downstream, which form the basis for steelhead and California red-legged frog habitat. Current activities include sediment/turbidity and flow management by manual operation of the intake slide gate before, during and after rain events, manual intake screen clearing as needed and incidental to site visits, and equipment and pump maintenance. Site visits to close or reopen the slide gate are frequently difficult or impossible during and immediately after rain events. Additionally, frequent vehicular travel to the site during wet weather may damage roadways, vegetation, and soils leading to erosion and stream sedimentation. Other than modifying the existing surface water diversion components of the diversion facilities on Majors and Laguna creeks, there are no mitigation measures for these potential impacts on sediment transport. Selection of the No Project Alternative would require periodic excavation of accumulated sediment from the diversion impoundments. This practice could significantly disturb habitat that historically has been occupied by California red-legged frog and other aquatic biota.

The existing pipeline reaches pass through numerous sensitive environments, some of which support threatened and endangered species (e.g. steelhead, California red-legged frog, Ohlone tiger beetle). Pipeline leakage or failure in close proximity to sensitive habitats could result in, but is not limited to, environmental impacts due to flooding, erosion, and sedimentation. Subsequent emergency response and repair work could result in further environmental impacts. The potential for such impacts is possible along each of the five pipeline reaches.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-12 17.0 Project Alternatives

Geological Resources

Potential impacts from geologic hazards are associated with the No Project Alternatives. The existing structures and piping are relatively old and may not withstand forces exerted on them when compared to new structures/piping with updated construction techniques. The primary potential impact would be the break or failure of the existing structure/piping that could result from ground shaking, slope failure (e.g., landslides) or other ground failure (e.g., liquefaction) initiated by a seismic event. Evidence of past slope failures (whether initiated by a seismic event or not) are present along most reaches, and represent a significant threat to portions of the Majors Reach pipeline. Although O&M measures may reduce this potential impact, O&M measures would not mitigate for significant ground shaking events or a large catastrophic slope failure beneath the pipeline. Other than updating or replacing the structure/piping, there are no mitigation measures for these potential impacts.

Hydrology and Water Quality

The only potential impacts to hydrology and water quality with the No Project Alternative are associated with the Majors Diversion structure. Current operation of this aging facility is believed to be causing impacts to sediment transport in the Majors Creek watershed. Erosion in the upper watershed, upstream of the diversion facility, is apparently causing sediment loading in the stream. Parts of the upper watershed are located in the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation. Pools and riffles downstream of the diversion are filling with sediment and decreasing habitat availability for California red-legged frogs and, to a lesser extent steelhead. Under the No Project Alternative, these conditions could have a significant impact on hydrology and water quality.

17.6.10 Summary The objectives of the proposed Project are to:

(1) Improve the NCS reliability and efficiency;

(2) Maintain the NCS water supply capacity into the future;

(3) Improve operations and efficiency where possible; and

(4) Minimize environmental impacts associated with operation of the NCS where feasible.

The No Project Alternative does not address any of these objectives. The problems associated with the NCS can only be expected to worsen as the system infrastructure continues to age, leading to a higher leakage rate, greater probability of pipeline failure, and environmental impacts associated with emergency response repair actions.

Proposed modifications to the Laguna and Majors diversions offer the greatest potential for improvements in operations and efficiency. These modifications would reduce operational requirements for sediment management, automating the spillway and intake slide gate operations, and installing self-cleaning intake fish screens. Through these same measures, they would also offer the greatest potential for reducing environmental impacts on fish and other aquatic organisms that inhabit the streams at or near the diversion or in downstream habitats by facilitating sediment transport during peak flows, stabilizing habitat conditions at the diversion impoundments, and reducing the potential for intake entrainment.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-13 17.0 Project Alternatives

Several of the pipeline reach alternatives considered provide distinct improvements in constructability (e.g., construction in or adjacent to existing access roads, and avoiding construction through residential and commercial properties on the ROW), O&M (e.g., easier access for inspection and repair), and reduced potential for environmental impacts during construction and O&M (e.g., eliminating stream crossings, reducing impacts to riparian habitat, minimizing construction through the coastal prairie grassland). Although further project specific-assessment of the potential impacts associated with these alternatives would be required prior to construction, the assessment is sufficient at this stage to make recommendations for the Environmentally Superior Alternative (preferred alternative) for each reach.

17.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA requires that an environmentally superior alternative for the proposed project be specified. CEQA also requires that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’ alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines § 15126[e][2]). In general, the environmentally superior alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the surrounding environment, while still achieving the basic project objectives. Typically this means the project that results in the least amount of physical disturbance and has the smallest physical footprint would be considered the environmentally superior alternative. In this instance the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative because it would result in the least amount of environmental disruption and would have the smallest foot print. However, the No Project Alternative is unlikely to achieve the reliability goals of the project. The continued deterioration of the existing pipeline system is expected to lead to:

• Increased water loss due to leakage or pipeline breaks;

• Significant environmental impacts and costs associated with increasingly frequent pipeline leaks and breaks; and

• Continued environmental impacts associated with sediment transport issues and O&M costs for sediment management at the diversions.

As such, the No Project alternative would not meet the objectives of the NCS Repair Project.

In determining which suite of pipeline alignments could be the second environmentally superior alternative, the balance of numerous issues including environmental impacts, permitting requirements, constructability access, on-going maintenance efforts, and to some degree cost were considered collectively in the selection process. For each pipeline reach, the No Project alternative was not selected in any case. The results of the more detailed analysis presented in Chapters 3 through 15 of this PEIR show that the basis for selecting the environmentally superior alternative was contingent on the substantial improvements or environmental benefits that would result over what exists currently.

The impact analysis shows that the following environmental resources would not be adversely impacted and/or easily mitigatable during construction and on-going O&M activities on each of the pipeline reaches. Therefore, these resources were not used in determining the environmentally superior alternative and include:

• Agricultural

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-14 17.0 Project Alternatives

• Air Quality

• Geology and Soils

• Hazards and Hazardous Materials

• Hydrology and Water Quality

• Land Use Planning

• Minerals

• Population and Housing

The second environmentally superior alternative for the NCS Repair Project is a combination of reach-specific alternatives utilizing existing and alternate alignments. The following briefly lists the diversion alternatives and pipeline reach alternatives that constitute the recommendations for the second environmentally superior alternative option.

• Laguna and Majors Diversions – The environmentally superior alternative for both diversions is Alternative 2, which would provide for the installation of a pneumatic spillway gate, self- cleaning fish screens and automatic flow and turbidity meters. This approach would allow sediment and bedload transport to occur in a more natural manner and would automate responses to changes in flow and turbidity to improve operational efficiency, thus allowing suspended sediment to pass the diversion during peak storm flows. Additional design work would need to be done to determine the size of the diversion impoundment necessary to provide refuge habitat for fish when no flow is passing the diversion.

• Liddell Reach – The environmentally superior alternative for this reach is Alternative 2, the Existing Alignment. This alternative would construct a new pipeline in approximately the same alignment with minor adjustments to move the pipeline out of the riparian and forest habitats to the access road where possible. Alternative 3 (Alternate Alignment) was not selected because it would relocate the initial 1,800 feet of the pipeline in the access road and through the RMC Pacific Materials sedimentation basin area. The road and sedimentation basins are located on the highly erosive Santa Margarita formation. The access road and the sedimentation basin area have been an environmental performance problem for the quarry. Placing the pipeline in this area would likely make a difficult situation worse by further disturbing the Santa Margarita formation soils.

• Laguna/Liddell Reach – The environmentally superior alternative for this reach is Alternative 3 (Alternate Alignment), which would place the pipeline in the existing access road from the “Y” to the NCP reach. This alternative would eliminate three stream crossings, avoid impacts to mature oaks and riparian trees, and would eliminate pipeline segments through two meadow areas. This alternative would also provide substantial improvements in pipeline inspection and maintenance and would reduce construction time and expense. This alternative would also greatly improve operations and maintenance access to the pipeline over the existing alignment.

• Laguna Reach – The environmentally superior alternative for this reach is Alternative 2 the Existing Alignment. This alternative would place the pipeline in the existing ROW with minor adjustments to move the pipeline from the redwood and oak woodland habitat to the access road where possible, and relocate the Y to the western side of Y Creek. This alternative would require

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-15 17.0 Project Alternatives

construction in the riparian corridor along Laguna Creek and would include three stream crossings. Substantial erosion control measures would be required to minimize erosion on the steep slopes and potential slope failures. However, Alternative 2 would avoid significant potentially unmitigateable impacts associated with Alternative 3 (Alternate Alignment). These impacts would include aesthetic impacts to residential properties, traffic impacts during construction on private roads and a driveway, and disruption of public services. Alternative 2 would allow continued water conveyance by gravity and would avoid the construction and operational cost of a pump station at the Laguna Diversion. Alternative 2 would allow operations and maintenance activities to continue in a manner similar to existing conditions and would avoid O&M impacts in the immediate vicinity of the residences of the Refugio Group.

• Majors Reach – The environmentally superior alternative for this reach is Alternative 4, the Road Alternative. This alternative would construct a small pump station at the Majors Diversion and relocate the pipeline from the existing ROW on the canyon slope, to the existing access road. This would substantially reduce impacts associated with construction on the steep forested canyon slopes for Alternatives 2 and 3, and would avoid construction, aesthetic, and biological impacts to the coastal prairie habitat on the upper marine terrace. This alternative would have a reduced construction period and would provide for improved pipeline inspection and maintenance. This alternative would need further design evaluation to determine 1) whether the initial 2,000 feet of the pipeline could be routed from the pump station to the road without running immediately adjacent to Majors Creek, and 2) the feasibility of extending electrical power from Highway 1 to the diversion site.

• NCP Reach – The environmentally superior alternative for this reach is Alternative 3, the High Street Alternative. This alternative would reroute the last 6,000 feet of the pipeline down High Street, along the Bike path at Highway 1 and through surface streets to the CPS. This alternative would avoid significant construction, aesthetic, traffic, and utility impacts to the residences north of High Street. Many of these residences have been constructed on or are immediately adjacent to the existing pipeline. This alternative is approximately 3,600 feet longer and may require special engineering design (e.g., vapor barrier) to protect the pipeline from contact with potentially contaminated soil near underground storage tank sites located along Coral, Encinal and River streets between the bike path and the CPS. The High Street reach would be constructed in 2005 in conjunction with the Bay Street Transmission Main for treated water that will traverse the same path along High Street. This would allow the City to conduct one construction event and place the raw water line immediately below the treated water line. This would minimize construction disturbance in the neighborhood and minimize the width of the ROW and construction footprint.

Collectively these alternatives are recommended as the preferred and environmentally superior alternative for the repair of the NCS. There are numerous environmental impacts and benefits associated with these alternatives. However, in almost all cases the impacts can be avoided or reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of standard BMPs and recommended mitigation measures.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 17-16 18.0 Persons and Agencies Consulted

18.0 Persons and Agencies Consulted

18.1 Agencies and Representatives Contacted

The federal, state, and local agencies and private organizations that were contacted during the course of this Program EIR are listed below.

Federal Agencies

US Fish and Wildlife Service National Marine Fisheries Service US Army Corps of Engineers US Environmental Protection Agency

State Agencies

California Air Resources Board California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Health Services California Department of State Parks and Recreation California Department of Transportation California Public Utilities Commission California Regional Water Quality Control Board California State Clearinghouse California State Lands Commission Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District State Water Resources Control Board University of California

Regional and Local Agencies

City of Santa Cruz, Parks and Recreation City of Santa Cruz, Redevelopment Agency City of Santa Cruz, Department of Public Works Santa Cruz County Planning Department Santa Cruz County Department of Parks Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works Santa Cruz County Department of Environmental Health

Organizations

Trust for Public Land Friends of the North Coast Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 18-1 18.0 Persons and Agencies Consulted

18.2 Scoping

On October 15, 2002, pursuant to CEQA, the City of Santa Cruz prepared an initial study. On June 9, 2004, the City filed a notice of preparation (NOP) with the California Office of Planning and Research that an EIR was to be prepared for the proposed project (State Clearinghouse No. 2004062073).

Public involvement is a key part of the EIR process. Methods to involve the public in the process have included or will include issuing an NOP on June 9, 2004, publishing notices of public meetings in newspapers, and creating and maintaining a mailing list to disseminate information about the decision-making process.

A public open house will be held during the 45-day review period to receive comments on the draft PEIR. The time and place of the open house will be published and is noted in the transmittal letter accompanying this document.

A final PEIR, which will discuss the comments received on the draft PEIR, will be published and made available for review. If the final PEIR is found to have been prepared in compliance with CEQA, it will be certified as complete by the Santa Cruz City Council. If no appeal of the project is submitted to the City Council within 10 days of approval of the PEIR, the Mayor of the City of Santa Cruz will sign the resolution certifying the PEIR; then a notice of determination will be filed with the California Office of Planning and Research.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 18-2 19.0 References

19.0 References

40 Code of Regulations. Part 50. 2003. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards.

About California. 2003a. Panther Beach. Website http://gocalifornia.about.com/bl_nb_pnthr_map.htm (accessed April 18, 2003).

About California 2003b. Bonny Doon Beach. Website: http://gocalifornia.about.com/bl_nb_bdoon.htm (accessed April 18, 2003).

American Automobile Association Map. 2000. City Series, Santa Cruz – Capitola.

Applied Survey Research. 2002. Santa Cruz County Geographical Information System: Percentage of the Population by Region. Website: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/products/CAP5_08_GIS.PDF (accessed June 20, 2002).

Arnold, R. A. 1983. Conservation and management of the endangered Smith’s blue butterfly, Euphilotes enoptes smithi (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 22:135-153.

Big Basin.org. Website: http://www.bigbasin.org/camping.html (accessed April 17, 2003).

Binford, L. C., B. G. Elliot, and S. W. Singer. 1975. Discovery of a nest and the downy young of the Marbled Murrelet. Wilson Bull. 87:303-319.

Biotic Resources Group. 2002. City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Department of Planning and Community Development.

Bland, D. and Associates. 2002. Dimeo Land Landfill Maintenance and Slope Protection for Freshwater Bypass Ponds and Lombardi Creek Outlet Structure, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department.

Bordeau, L. 1989. Report on Archaeological Investigations at Sunflower House: CA-SCR-93 and CA-SCR-93/H, with Recommendations for Cultural Resource Management. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Brabb, E. E. (Compiled by). 1997. Geologic Map of Santa Cruz County, California: A Digital Database. Digital database prepared by S. Graham, C. Wentworth, D. Knifong, R. Graymer and J. Blissenbach. Website: http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of 97-489.

Bryan Mori Biological Consulting Service. 2002. Laguna Creek Pipeline – Marbled Murrelet Habitat Assessment. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Water Department.

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Legomarsina. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-NWFSC-27.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-1 19.0 References

Bulger, John. 1999. Results of a Survey of California Red-legged Frogs on Moore Creek Preserve, Santa Cruz, California. Prepared for the Land Trust of Santa Cruz County.

Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and I. V. Legomarsina. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS- NWFSC-27.

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2001. County Statistical Data. Website: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/card/pdfs/Statdata_county.pdf.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources. 2002. Important Farmland (Agricultural Land Use) Map. Prepared under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/fmmp.

California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1987. Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area. Special Report 146 Part IV.

California Department of Conservation. 2003. Office of Land Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Websites: http://www.csc.noaa.gov/products/sf/html/scrzfm.htm and http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003a. California Natural Diversity Database. Special Status Species/Community Location Full Report for the Santa Cruz and Davenport USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Obtained from CDROM, “CNDDB-Commercial Version.”

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003b. Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch)-Public Review Draft. November 2003.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002a. California Natural Diversity Data Base Rare Find Report for Año Nuevo, Big Basin, Castle Rock Ridge, Davenport, Felton, Franklin Point, Loma Prieta, Santa Cruz, Soquel, Watsonville West quadrangles. CDFG Natural Heritage Division, Rancho Cordova, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002b. State and federally listed endangered, threatened, and rare plants of California. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/TEPlants.pdf (accessed July 2002).

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002c. Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/spplant.pdf (accessed July 2002).

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Animals and Plant in California, American Peregrine Falcon. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1998. Draft Strategic Plan for Restoration of the Endangered Coho Salmon South of San Francisco Bay.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Stream Inventory Report – San Vicente Creek.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-2 19.0 References

California Department of Fish and Game. 1983. California’s Wildlife, Birds, Peregrine Falcon. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whadab/html/B129.html.

California Department of Finance. 2002. California County Population. Website: http://www.csac.counties.org/counties_close_up/county_web_county_population.html (accessed June 19, 2002).

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2002. California Forest Practice Rules. Title 14, California Code of Regulations Chapters 4, 4.5, and 10. CDF, Resource Management, Forest Practice Program, Sacramento, CA. January 2002.

California Department of Health Services. 1987. Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of the Noise Element of the General Plan. Appendix A in State of California General Plan Guidelines. California Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2001. California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) Breeding Habitat Surveys at Wilder Ranch State Park and Natural Bridges State Beach. Prepared by Shannon Hernandez, Environmental Services Intern.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003a. Wilder Ranch State Park. Website: http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=549. Accessed April 17, 2003.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. 2003b. Big Basin State Park. Website: http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=540 (accessed April 17, 2003).

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California (6th edition, electronic version). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor, Sacramento, CA.

California Public Resources Code. 1999. California Coastal Act. Website: http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/cca/stat/.

California State Employment Development Division. 2002. Santa Cruz County Current Labor Force and Industry Employment 6/12/02. Website: http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/file/lfmonth/scruzpr.txt (accessed June 19, 2002).

Carollo Engineers. 2000. City of Santa Cruz Alternative Water Supply Study.

Carter, H. R. and S. G. Sealy. 1987. Inland records of downy young and fledgling Marbled Murrelets in North America. Murrelet 68:58-63.

City of Santa Cruz. 1994. City of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Program 1990–2005, Volume I of III: General Plan Elements and Local Coastal Program Summary.

City of Santa Cruz Environmental Program. 2003. Santa Cruz City Landfill Facility. Waste Reduction and Recycling Program. Resource Recovery Facility. Public Works Department. Website: http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/.

City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation. 2003a. Website: http://www.santacruzparksandrec.com/index.html (accessed May 9, 2003).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-3 19.0 References

City of Santa Cruz Parks and Recreation. 2003b. Website: http://www.santacruzparksandrec.com/parks/moorecreek.html.

Community Assessment Report. 2001. Santa Cruz County Community Assessment Project, Year 8. Website: http://www.appliedsurveyresearch.org/cap8_report.htm (accessed on August 14, 2003).

Community Assessment Report. 2003. City of Santa Cruz, Integrated Water Plan, Draft Final Report. June.

Costa, J. 1950. CA-SCR-10 Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Coastal Dairies Resource Plan. 2001. Website: http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/Section_5.5_- _Land_Use.pdf.

County of Santa Cruz. 1994a. County of Santa Cruz 1994 General Plan and Local Coastal Plan.

County of Santa Cruz. 1994b. County of Santa Cruz 1994 General Plan. Bonny Doon Planning Area. 1993 General Plan. Website: http://elib.cs.berkeley.edu/cgi- bin/display_page?page=98&elib_id=1314&format=gif.

County of Santa Cruz. Website: http://www.scparks.com/parkfac/index.shtml (accessed May 9, 2003).

County of Santa Cruz. 1991. North Coast Beaches Master Plan.

Caltrans Traffic Count Database. 2002. Website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2002all/r001i.htm.

DeHaven, R. W., F. T. Crase, and P. P. Woronecki. 1975. Breeding status of the tricolored blackbird, 1969-1972. Calif. Fish and Game 61:166-180.

Dupre, W. 1975. Liquefaction Potential of Quaternary Deposits in Santa Cruz County, California.

D. W. Alley & Associates. 2002. Comparison of juvenile steelhead densities, 1997 through 2001, in the San Lorenzo River and tributaries, Santa Cruz County, California; with an estimate of juvenile population size and index of adult returns. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. June 2002.

D. W. Alley & Associates. 2000. Comparison of juvenile steelhead densities, population estimates and habitat conditions for the San Lorenzo River, Santa Cruz County, California, 1995-99; with an index of adult returns. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department, Santa Cruz County Environmental Planning Department, and the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. June 2002.

Dwyer, K. R., L. C. Bauman, D. W. Moore, J. M. Bowsman, and N. K. Poland. 1980. Reconnaissance Survey of the Coastal Area of Wilder Ranch State Park. Senior thesis. University of California, Santa Cruz. 149pp.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-4 19.0 References

Edwards, J. 1993. CA-SCR-10 Site Record. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd. 2001. Reports on Ohlone tiger beetle surveys at Gray Whale Ranch. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Santa Cruz, CA.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2004. Additional Habitat Studies: Liddell, Laguna, and Majors Creeks. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz. March 10, 2004.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2004a. North Coast Stream Spawning Habitat Assessment. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz. June 4, 2004.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2002a. Initial Study: City of Santa Cruz North Coast System Rehabilitation Project. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2002b. Steelhead, Red-legged Frog, and Western Pond Turtle Habitat Surveys in Laguna and Majors Creeks. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Water Department, Santa Cruz, CA.

ENTRIX, Inc. 2002c. Russian River Biological Assessment Interim Report 6: Restoration and Conservation Actions. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, CA and Sonoma County Water Agency, Santa Rosa, CA.

ENTRIX, Inc. 1997. Red-Legged Frog Habitat Surveys for the City of Santa Cruz Diversion Sites. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Water Department, Santa Cruz, CA.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2002. Area/Corridor Study, Santa Cruz Pipeline, Santa Cruz, CA.

Environmental Science Associates (Env. Sci. Assoc.). 2001. Coast Dairies Long-Term Resource Protection and Use Plan Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Trust for Public Land, Western Region.

ESA 2004. Coast Dairies Long-term Resources Protection and Use Plan. Section VII-2.

European Union. 2001. Noise Levels for Outdoor Equipment. Noise Levels for Pumps. Website: http://www.xs4all.nl/~rigolett/ENGELS/equipment/pumpfr.htm.

Fiske, G. and Associates. 2003. City of Santa Cruz Integrated Water Plan - Draft Final Report. Portland, OR.

Freitag, R., D. H. Kavanaugh, and R. Morgan. 1993. A new species of Cicindela (Coleoptera: Carabidae: Cicindelini) from remnant native grassland in Santa Cruz County, California. The Coleopterists Bull. 47:113-120.

Garaventa, Donna. 1983. Cultural Resources Survey Report: San Francisquito Creek Bridge Replacement Project, Located on Junipero Serra Boulevard, Santa Clara County – San Mateo, California. Basin Research Associates, Hayward, California.

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Soc. 408pp.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-5 19.0 References

Gobalet, K. 2001. In Environmental Science Associates (2001), Coast Dairies Long-Term Resource Protection and Use Plan Existing Conditions Report. Prepared for Trust for Public Land, Western Region.

Goddard, T. and C. Brennan. 2002. Investigation of agricultural water sources: Northern Santa Cruz County, California. City of Santa Cruz Water Department, Water Conservation Office. June.

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608pp.

Hagar Environmental Science. 2001. In Kawamoto Environmental Services (2001), Aquatic Assessment and Monitoring Plan for Wilder Ranch State Park. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Division, Sacramento, CA.

Hall, N. T., A. M. Sarna-Wojcicki, and W. R. Dupre. 1974. Faults and Their Potential Hazards in Santa Cruz County, California. U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-626.

Hammer, T. E. and E. B. Cummins. 1990. Forest habitat relationships of Marbled Murrelets in northwestern Washington. Unpublished report, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Program, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 57pp.

Hammer, T. E. and E. B. Cummins. 1991. Relationships between forest characteristics and use of inland sites by Marbled Murrelets in Northern Washington. Unpublished report, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Program, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 47pp.

Harrison, C. 1978. A field guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. W. Collins Sons and Co., Cleveland, OH. 416pp.

Hart, E. W. and W. A. Bryant. 1997. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, California.

Harvey & Stanley Associates, Inc. 1982. Fish Habitat Assessments for Santa Cruz County Streams. Prepared for Santa Cruz County Planning Department, Alviso, CA.

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1989. Habitat correlation of distribution of the California red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for management. In Szaro, R. E., K. E., Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical coordinators), editor. Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America, Proceedings of the Symposium on July 19-21, 1988 in Flagstaff, AZ.

Hickman, J. C., ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Hirsch, K. V., D. A. Woodby, and L. B. Astheimer. 1981. Growth of a nesting Marbled Murrelet. Condor 83:264-265.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. DOE/BP-62137-1.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-6 19.0 References

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

H. T. Harvey and Associates and Entomological Consulting Services. 2004. City of Santa Cruz Habitat Conservation Plan Terrestrial Resources Technical Report. Prepared for ENTRIX, Inc. July 14, 2004.

H. T. Harvey and Associates. 2003. Salmonid Monitoring in the San Lorenzo River, 2002. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz Water Department. April 2, 2003.

Hunter, W. F. and P. H. Baldwin. 1962. Nesting of the Black Swift in Montana. Wilson Bull. 74:409- 416.

Hyland, T. 2002. A Summary of Ohlone Tiger Beetle Management at Gray Whale Ranch State Park.

Hylkema, M. G. 1991. Prehistoric Native American Adaptations along the Central California Coast of San Mateo and Santa Cruz Counties. Masters Thesis, San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.

Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.

Jennings, M. R. 1993. List of streams and drainages where California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) are present. Letter prepared for the USFWS, Sacramento, CA. July 9, 1993.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Final Report: Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA.

Jones, D. and W. Hildebrandt. 1994. Archaeological Investigations at Sites CA-SCR-10, CA-SCR-17, CA-SCR-304, and CA-SCR-38/123 for the North Coast Treated Water Main Project. Santa Cruz County, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Davis, California.

Jones & Stokes. 2000. City of Santa Cruz Water Supply Alternatives Environmental and Regulatory Constraints Analysis. Prepared for Carollo Engineers, Walnut Creek, CA.

Kleinfelder & Associates. 1985. North-Central Santa Cruz County Water Supply Master Plan Study, Task Report B-1, Extension of Monthly Flow Records of Gauged Streams to the Period 1921- 82. Submitted to North-Central Santa Cruz County Water-Policy Planning Task Force.

Kawamoto Environmental Services. 2001. Aquatic Assessment and Monitoring Plan for Wilder Ranch State Park. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources Division, Sacramento, CA.

Kyle, D. E. 1990. Historic Spots in California, revised edition. Stanford University Press. Stanford, CA.

Larsen, C. 1994. A Status Review of the Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in California. Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Department Candidate Species Status Report 91-1.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-7 19.0 References

Leach-Palm, L. and S. Mikesell. 1999. P-44-000406, P-44-000381 and P-44-000005 Site Records. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Levy, Richard. 1978. Costanoan. In Robert F. Heizer, vol. ed., Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8: California: 496-504. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer. 1999. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats in California. California Department of Fish and Game.

McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of northern California, an annotated field list. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Soc., Berkeley. 84pp.

McGinnis, S. M. 1991. An Evaluation of the Anadromous Fish Spawning and Parr Rearing Habitats of the Liddell and San Vicente Creek Systems, Santa Cruz County, CA. Prepared for RMC Pacific Materials.

McPherson, F., D. Johnston, R. Morgan, S. Singer, and T. Corelli. 1995. Ecosystems of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Accessed March 29, 2001 from: http://www.cruzio.com/~slriver/scmb/ecosyst/ecosyst.html.

Milliken. 1995. A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press. Menlo Park, CA.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2000. Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories (MLML). 1993. Wilder Ranch Wetland Restoration Plan. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation, Aptos, CA.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, revised and expanded. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. 502pp.

NOAA Fisheries. 1997. Final rule: Endangered and threatened species: Listing of several evolutionary significant units of West Coast steelhead. Federal Register 62(159):43937-54. August 18, 1997.

NOAA Fisheries. 1996. Final rule: Endangered and threatened species: Threatened status for central California coast coho salmon evolutionary significant unit. Federal Register 61(212):56138- 49. October 31, 1996.

Nelson, S. K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmotatus). In The Birds of North America, No. 276 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and AOU, Washington, DC.

Norris, M. R. and R. Webb. 1990. Geology of California. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Second Edition.

Orians, G. H. 1961. The ecology of blackbird (Agelaius) social systems. Ecol. Monogr. 31:285-312.

Pearson, D. L. 1988. Biology of Tiger Beetles. Annual Review of Entomology 33:123-147.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-8 19.0 References

Ralph, C. J., P. W. C. Paton, A. Zakis, and G. Strachan. 1990. Breeding distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in Redwood National Park and vicinity during 1998. pp. 57-70. In C. van Riper, et al. (Eds.). U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Transactions and Proceedings, Series No. 8.

Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Mange. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp.

Roberts, S., A. Baron, E. E. Brabb, and R. J. Pike. 1998. Digital Compilation of "Preliminary Map of Landslide Deposits in Santa Cruz County, California, By Cooper-Clark and Associates, 1975": A Digital Map Database. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-0792. Website: http://wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/open-file/of 98-792.

Roper, K. 1993. Archaeological Data Recovery Excavation at CA-SCR-38/123 Wilder Ranch, Santa Cruz, California. Biosystems Analyses, Inc. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Santa Cruz County Code. 2003. Zoning Regulations. Website: http://ordlink.com/codes/santacruzco/index.htm.

Santa Cruz County Code. 2003. Title 13 Planning and Zoning Regulations, Chapter 13.01 General Plan Administration, Section 13.01.040 (b)(6). September.

Santa Cruz County Code. 2003. Title 8 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 8.30 Noise, Section 8.30.010 Curfew – Offensive Noise. September.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code. 2003. Title 9 Peace, Safety and Morals, Chapter 9.36 Noise, Section 9.36.010 Curfew – Offensive Noise. September.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code. 2003. Title 24 Zoning, Chapter 24.14 Environmental Resource Management, Section 24.14.260 Noise. September.

Santa Cruz Municipal Code. 2003. Title 24 Zoning, Chapter 24.22 Definitions, Section 24.22.488 Local Ambient. September.

Santa Cruz City Planning and Community Development. 2003. Website: http://www.ci.santa- cruz.ca.us/.

Santa Cruz City Traffic Engineering Department – Daily Traffic Volumes 1998–2000. Website: http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/pw/trafeng/counts.html (accessed May 21, 2003).

Sawyer J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Sealy, S. G. 1972. Adaptive differences in breeding biology in the marine bird family Alcidae. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. Michigan, Ann Arbor. 283pp.

Shapovalov, L. and A. C. Taft. 1954. The Life Histories of the Steelhead Rainbow Trout (Salmo gairdneri gairdneri) and Silver Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). California Department of Fish and Game, Fish Bulletin, No. 98.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-9 19.0 References

Shoup, L. H. and R. T. Milliken with Alan K. Brown. 1994. Iniago of Rancho Posolmi: The Life and Times of a Mission Indian and His Land. Draft Report prepared for Woodward Clyde Consultants, November 1994. On file at Woodward Clyde, Oakland, CA.

Simons, T. R. 1980. Discovery of a ground-nesting Marbled Murrelet. Condor 82:1-9.

Singer, S. W., D. L. Suddjian, and S. A. Singer. 1992. Discovery, observations and fledging of a Marbled Murrelet from a redwood tree nest. Unpublished report, Santa Cruz City Museum of Natural History, Santa Cruz, CA.

Singer, S. W., N. L. Naslund, S. A. Singer, and C. J. Ralph. 1991. Discovery and observations of two tree nests of the marbled murrelet. The Condor. 93:330-339.

Skinner, M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Fifth Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Smith J. 2001. Tidewater Goby Study Progress Report for 2000 (Permit: PRT-793640).

Smith J. and J. Welch. 1996. Report of Tidewater Goby Sampling Results (Permit: PRT-793640).

Stebbins, R. C. 1951. Amphibians of Western North America. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology 27:1-342.

Swift, C. C., J. L. Nelson, C. Maslow and T. Stein. 1989. Biology and distribution of the tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi (Pisces: Gobiidae) of California. Contributions in Science, No. 404, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Titus, R. G., D. C. Erman, and W. M. Snider. In prep. History and status of steelhead/catfish in California coastal drainages south of San Francisco Bay. Department of Fish and Game.

Toppozada, T., D. Branum, M. Peterson, C. Hallstrom, C. Cramer, and M. Reichle. 2000. Epicenters of and Areas Damaged by California Earthquakes, 1800-1999. Map Sheet 49. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA.

Transit Service. Santa Cruz METRO. Website: http://www.scmtd.com/.

Trust for Public Land. 2002. Coastal Dairies. Website: http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=1039&folder_id=266 (accessed April 17, 2003 for Recreation).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000a. United States Census 2000. http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed June 19, 2002).

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000b. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. Table DP-1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Website: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed June 19, 2002).

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-10 19.0 References

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000c. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000. Table DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics: 2000. Website: http://factfinder.census.gov (accessed June 19, 2002).

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1980. Soil Survey of Santa Cruz County, California.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. AirData Monitor Trends Report. Santa Cruz County. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/montrnd.html.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. AirData Monitor Trends Report. Website: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ (accessed June 6, 2002).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. 1999 National Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Federal Register: December 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 238).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered status of the Ohlone tiger beetle (Cicindela ohlone). Federal Register 66:50340-50350.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Fact Sheets, Peregrine Falcon. Website: http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Guidance on site assessment and field surveys for California red-legged frogs. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Muurelet (Brachyramphus marmotatu) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Federal Register 61(101):25813-25833. May 23, 1996.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final rule: Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the tidewater goby. Federal Register 59:5494-99. February 4, 1994.

Vallier, M. 1977. CA-SCR-15, CA-SCR-16 and CA-SCR-17 Site Records. On file at the Northwest Information Center, Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California.

Wang, J. C. S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary and Adjacent Waters, California: A Guide to the Early Life Histories. Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, Technical Report No. 9.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-11 19.0 References

Weitcamp, L. A., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, G. B. Milner, D. J. Teel, R. G. Kope and R. S. Waples. 1995. Status Review of Coho Salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS- NWFSC-24.

Wood Rogers. 2002. North Coast Rehabilitation Project, Majors Creek and Laguna Creek Diversion Facilities. Prepared for the Santa Cruz Water Department. Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. 1988. California’s Wildlife: Volume 1 (Amphibians and Reptiles). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

19.1 Personal Communication

Daily Traffic Volumes, Fax data received from Eli Mobray in response to personal phone communication. May 21, 2003.

Decon, M. Personal communication with Dennis Kearney regarding fire services in Santa Cruz County. August 15, 2003.

Heckman, M. Personal communication with Dennis Kearney regarding Pacific Gas and Electric natural gas service in the Santa Cruz area. August 18, 2003.

Holroyd, P. 2003. Personal communication via email between Dr. Patricia Holroyd, Museum of Paleontology, University of California at Berkeley, and Mr. Ryan Banta, ENTRIX. May 20, 2003.

McMann, C. Personal communication with Dennis Kearney regarding police beat details within the City of Santa Cruz. August 15, 2003.

Suddjian, D. 2005. Personal communication with Lisa Mash regarding the presence or absence of the American peregrine falcon in the Project area. March 21, 2005.

Suddjian, D. 2004. Personal communication with Lisa Mash regarding marbled murrelet and white- tailed kite presence in the Project area. December 29, 2004.

Vincent, D. 2002. Personal communication with David Vincent, District Superintendent, Santa Cruz District. August 14, 2002.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 19-12 20.0 List of Preparers

20.0 List of Preparers

City of Santa Cruz Water Department

Linette Almond, Deputy Director, Water Department Chris Berry, Water Resources Manager Bill Kocher, Director, Water Department Terry Tompkins, Deputy Director/Operations Manager

Carollo Engineers (Contractor)

Ken Wilkins, Principal California Registered Civil Engineer M.S. Environmental Engineering Colorado University B.S. Civil Engineering Colorado State University Years of Experience: 16 (Project Manager)

Carrie Locke B.S. Civil/Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Years of Experience: 6 (Water Facility Planning, Sewers, GIS)

Bob Hoffman California and Nebraska Registered Civil Engineer Wyoming Registered Sanitary Engineer M.S. Civil Engineering University of Nebraska B.S. Civil Engineering University of Colorado Years of Experience: 33 (Wastewater Treatment Facilities, Sanitation, Pipelines

Scott D. Christensen California and Nevada Registered Civil Engineer M.S. Engineering Management Brigham Young University B.S. Civil Engineering Brigham Young University Years of Experience: 13 (Sewer and Water Pipelines, Reservoirs)

ENTRIX, Inc. (Contractor)

Jamie Tull M.S. Water Science University of California, Davis B.S. Natural Resources Management California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo Years of Experience: 15 (Project Manager)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 20-1 20.0 List of Preparers

Dennis Kearney B.S. Conservation and Resource Studies, University of California, Berkeley Years of Experience: 7 (Deputy Project Manager/Public Services/Utilities)

Lisa Mash B.S. Marine Biology, University of South Carolina Years of Experience: 7 (Biological Resources Coordinator, Fisheries Biology, Regulatory Compliance and Permitting)

Nathaniel Atherstone B.S. Earth Systems Science and Policy, California State University Monterey Bay Years of Experience: 2 (Transportation)

Chelsea Ayala B.A. Environmental Studies, Minor, Geology, California State University, Sacramento Years of Experience: 11 (Air Quality, Regulatory Compliance, Regulatory Permitting)

John Baas, Ph.D. Ph.D. Forest Resource Management, Oregon State University M.S. Recreation Resources, Colorado State University B.S. Wildlife Biology, Colorado State University Years of Experience: 15 (Recreation/Visual Resources)

Zoltan Der B.A. Geography, California State University, Sonoma Years of Experience: 9 (GIS)

Asavari Devadiga M.S., Environmental Science and Policy, University of Massachusetts Boston Graduate Diploma, Environmental Pollution Control Technology, University of Bombay B.S. Microbiology, University of Bombay Years of Experience: 2 (Land Use, Agricultural Resources)

Garrett Duncan Ph.D. Candidate, Geography, University of California, Davis M.S. Natural Resource Science, Humboldt State University B.A. Environmental Science, California State University Hayward Years of Experience: 6 (Natural Resource Science, Recreation Planning, Social Science)

Teresa Fung MCRP City and Regional Planning, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo B.A. Anthropology and Classical Civilization, University of California, Davis Years of Experience: 11 (Environmental Planning, Traffic)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 20-2 20.0 List of Preparers

Mitchell Katzel M.L.A. Environmental Planning, U.C. Berkeley B.S. Syracuse University Years of Experience: 13 (Geomorphology)

Gretchen Lebednik M.S. Botany, University of Washington, Seattle B.A. Environmental Biology, University of California, Santa Barbara Years of Experience: 13 (Vegetation Ecology, Endangered Species Permitting)

Richard McCartney California Registered Geologist M.S. Geology Miami University B.S. Geology St. Lawrence University Years of Experience: 15 (Geology, Soils)

Steven McNeeley B.S. Earth Systems Science & Policy, California State University, Monterey Bay Years Experience: 3 (Geomorphology, Hydrology)

Gina Morimoto M.M.A. Marine Affairs, University of Washington, Seattle B.A. Marine Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz Years of Experience: 4 (Hazardous Materials)

Brett Rushing M.A. Anthropology (ABT), San Francisco State University B.A. Anthropology, Louisiana State University Years of Experience: 5 (Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation)

Carrie Wills M.A. Anthropology California State University, Hayward B.A. Anthropology, California State University, Hayward Years of Experience: 12 (Cultural Resources, Historic Preservation)

John Wooster M.S. Geology, University of California, Davis B.A. Environmental Science and Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara Years of Experience: 3 (Geomorphology, Geology, Hydrology, Fisheries)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 20-3

21.0 Glossary

Aerodynamic Equivalent Diameter A standard method for characterizing the aerodynamic properties of suspended particles according to their relative settling velocities. The aerodynamic equivalent diameter of a particle is the diameter of a sphere with a 1 gram per cubic centimeter density, which would have the same settling velocity as the real particle.

Air Basin A regional area defined for air quality management purposes based on considerations that include the constraints of topographic features on meteorology and pollutant transport patterns, and political jurisdiction boundaries that influence the design and implementation of air quality management programs.

Ambient Air Quality Standards A combination of air pollutant concentrations, exposure durations, and exposure frequencies that are established as thresholds above which adverse impacts to public health and welfare may be expected. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sets ambient air quality standards for the U.S.; state public health or environmental protection agencies set ambient air quality standards for each state.

Archaic An archaeological period beginning between 9,000 and 7,000 years ago.

Attainment Area An area considered to have air quality as good as or better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. An area may be an attainment area for one pollutant and a nonattainment area for others.

A-Weighted Decibel Level (dBA) A weighting scale applied to decibel measurements made at different frequency bands in order to adjust measured physical air pressure fluctuation data to correspond with the sensitivity of human hearing to different sound frequencies. The A-weighted scale significantly reduces the measured pressure level for low frequency sounds while slightly increasing the measured pressure level for some middle frequency sounds. The adjusted decibel values for the individual frequency bands typically are combined into a single overall A-weighted decibel value.

Bedrock Solid rock underlying soil and younger rock layers; generally the oldest exposed geological unit.

Bore To make a hole in or through with a drill or other device. Used commonly for determining sedimentary history, to reveal information on past site conditions, and to provide some guidance on future site stability or erosion potential.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) A colorless odorless gas that is toxic because it reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood.

CNEL (community noise equivalent level) An average noise level over a 24-hour period, with penalty factors added to evening and nighttime noise levels to reflect the greater disturbance potential from evening and nighttime noises. CNEL values are calculated from hourly Leq values, with the Leq values for the for evening period (7 PM to

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-1 21.0 Glossary

10 PM) increased by 5 dB and the Leq values for the nighttime period (10 PM to 7 AM) increased by 10 dB.

Criteria Pollutant An air pollutant for which there is a national ambient air quality standard (carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulfur dioxide, inhalable particulate matter, fine particulate matter, or airborne lead particles).

De Minimis Level A threshold for determining whether various regulatory requirements apply to a particular action or facility. In an air quality context, de minimis thresholds typically are based on emissions, facility size, facility activity levels, or other indicators. Can refer to incidental amount of hazardous materials or waste; less than a reportable quantity of hazardous material or waste.

Decibel (dB) A logarithmic ratio scale used most often to characterize sound pressure levels. Mathematically, a decibel is 10 times the logarithm of the ratio between a measured condition and a reference value for that condition. In the field of atmospheric acoustics, the condition being measured is the magnitude of air pressure fluctuations within certain frequency limits. The reference pressure used for airborne sound is 20 microPascals.

Desalination The process of removing salt from water.

Ethnohistory Native American history following contact with Europeans.

Fault A rock fracture accompanied by displacement.

Footprint The linear space taken up by a structure or graded area.

Foreground The closest part of the visual landscape where maximum detail and color intensity can be discerned.

Form The visual mass or shape of an object, often defined by edge, outline, and surrounding space.

Formation A unit of rock that is distinctive and persistent over a large area.

Fossiliferous Containing fossils.

Fugitive Emissions Emissions from various project activities (such as construction activities) that could not reasonably be confined or collected in a stack, vent, or similar device that would allow application of emission control equipment.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-2 21.0 Glossary

Historic The archaeological period dating to post-European settlement.

Hydrograph The graphical display of the change in a hydraulic variable, such as water elevation in a well or in a stream channel, or flow in a stream channel, over time.

Leq (equivalent noise level) An equivalent constant decibel value (normally dBA) that represents the same cumulative acoustical energy as a sound that varies in intensity over a defined period of time. Leq is sometimes described as the energy-averaged sound level.

Ldn (day-night noise level) An average noise level over a 24-hour period calculated from hourly Leq values, with penalty factors added to nighttime noise levels to reflect the greater disturbance potential from nighttime noises. Ldn values are calculated from hourly Leq values, with Leq values for the nighttime period (10 –PM to 7 AM) increased by 10 dB.

Line The visual path the eye follows when perceiving abrupt differences in form, color, or texture, usually evident as edges of shapes or masses in the landscape.

Liquefaction (Soil) Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the space between individual particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other.

Maintenance Area An area that currently meets federal ambient air quality standards but that was previously designated as a nonattainment area. Federal agency actions in a maintenance area are still subject to Clean Air Act conformity review requirements.

Microgram One one-millionth of a gram.

Middleground The intermediate section of the visual landscape, between the foreground and background, where visual elements begin to join but where less detail is perceived.

Miocene A geological epoch that began 24 million years ago and ended five million years ago.

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) A toxic reddish gas formed by oxidation of nitric oxide. Nitrogen dioxide is a strong respiratory and eye irritant. Most nitric oxide formed by combustion processes is quickly converted into nitrogen dioxide. A criteria pollutant in its own right, and a precursor of ozone, numerous types of photochemically generated nitrate particles, and atmospheric nitrous and nitric acids.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-3 21.0 Glossary

NITRIC OXIDE (NO) A colorless toxic gas formed primarily by combustion processes that oxidize atmospheric nitrogen gas or nitrogen compounds found in the fuel. A precursor of ozone, nitrogen dioxide, numerous types of photochemically generated nitrate particles, and atmospheric nitrous and nitric acids. Most nitric oxide formed by combustion processes is quickly converted into nitrogen dioxide.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) A group term meaning the combination of nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide; other trace oxides of nitrogen may also be included in instrument-based NOX measurements. A precursor of ozone, photochemically generated nitrate particles, and atmospheric nitrous and nitric acids.

Nonattainment Area An area that does not meet a federal or state ambient air quality standard. Federal agency actions occurring in a federal nonattainment area are subject to Clean Air Act conformity review requirements.

Organic Compounds Compounds of carbon containing hydrogen and possibly other elements (such as oxygen, sulfur, or nitrogen). Major subgroups of organic compounds include hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids, esters, ethers, and ketones. Organic compounds do not include crystalline or amorphous forms of elemental carbon (such as graphite, diamond, and carbon black), the simple oxides of carbon (carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide), metallic carbides, or metallic carbonates.

Ozone (O3) A compound consisting of three oxygen atoms. Ozone is a major constituent of photochemical smog that is formed through chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving reactive organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and ultraviolet light. Ozone is a toxic chemical that damages various types of plant and animal tissues and that causes chemical oxidation damage to various materials. Ozone is a respiratory irritant and appears to increase susceptibility to respiratory infections. A natural layer of ozone in the upper atmosphere absorbs high energy ultraviolet radiation, reducing the intensity and spectrum of ultraviolet light that reaches earth’s surface.

Paleo-Indian A period of time dating from 12,000 to 8,000 years ago.

Particulate Matter Solid or liquid material having size, shape, and density characteristics that allow the material to remain suspended in the atmosphere for more than a few minutes. Particulate matter can be characterized by chemical characteristics, physical form, or aerodynamic properties. Categories based on aerodynamic properties are commonly described as being size categories, although physical size is not used to define the categories. Many components of suspended particulate matter are respiratory irritants. Some components (such as crystalline or fibrous minerals) are primarily physical irritants. Other components are chemical irritants (such as sulfates, nitrates, and various organic chemicals). Suspended particulate matter also can contain compounds (such as heavy metals and various organic compounds) that are systemic toxins or necrotic agents. Suspended particulate matter or compounds adsorbed on the surface of particles can also be carcinogenic or mutagenic chemicals.

Permeability A property of porous materials that describes the degree of resistance to fluid flow. Also a synonym for hydraulic conductivity.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-4 21.0 Glossary

Piezometer A perforated hollow pipe (usually PVC) that is inserted into a gravel-filled hole in the ground and used to measure the level of the groundwater table over time. An array of piezometers can be used to determine the three-dimensional path of groundwater flow in an aquifer.

Pleistocene A geological epoch that began 1.8 million years ago and ended 10,000 years ago; a period of geologic time spanning two million to 11,000 years ago.

Pliocene A geological epoch that began five million years ago and ended 1.8 million years ago; a period of geologic time seven to two million years ago.

PM10 (Inhalable Particulate Matter) A fractional sampling of suspended particulate matter that approximates the extent to which suspended particles with aerodynamic equivalent diameters smaller than 50 microns penetrate to the lower respiratory tract (tracheo-bronchial airways and alveoli in the lungs). In a regulatory context, PM10 is any suspended particulate matter collected by a certified sampling device having a 50 percent collection efficiency for particles with aerodynamic equivalent diameters of 9.5 to 10.5 microns and a maximum aerodynamic diameter collection limit of less than 50 microns. Collection efficiencies are greater than 50 percent for particles with aerodynamic diameters smaller than 10 microns and less than 50 percent for particles with aerodynamic diameters larger than 10 microns.

PM2.5 (Fine Particulate Matter) A fractional sampling of suspended particulate matter that approximates the extent to which suspended particles with aerodynamic equivalent diameters smaller than 6 microns penetrate into the alveoli in the lungs. In a regulatory context, PM2.5 is any suspended particulate matter collected by a certified sampling device having a 50 percent collection efficiency for particles with aerodynamic equivalent diameters of 2.0 to 2.5 microns and a maximum aerodynamic diameter collection limit less than 6 microns. Collection efficiencies are greater than 50 percent for particles with aerodynamic diameters smaller than 2.5 microns and less than 50 percent for particles with aerodynamic diameters larger than 2.5 microns.

Precursor A compound or category of pollutant that undergoes chemical reactions in the atmosphere to produce or catalyze the production of another type of air pollutant.

Prehistoric The historic period before European settlement.

Recharge The process by which groundwater is replenished. Recharge occurs when water infiltrates the soil and percolates downward through porous media until it reaches the water table. Recharge occurs in many areas but commonly along basin margins, through stream channels or lakebeds, and artificially through injection wells or percolation ponds.

State Implementation Plan (SIP) Legally enforceable plans adopted by states and submitted to the US EPA for approval that identify the actions and programs to be undertaken by the state and its subdivisions to achieve and maintain national ambient air quality standards in a time frame mandated by the Clean Air Act.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-5 21.0 Glossary

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) A pungent, colorless, and toxic oxide of sulfur formed primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels. It is a respiratory irritant, especially for asthmatics. A criteria pollutant in its own right and a precursor of sulfate particles and atmospheric sulfuric acid.

Sulfur Oxides (SOX) A group term meaning the combination of sulfur dioxide and sulfur trioxide; treated as a precursor of sulfur dioxide, sulfate particles, and atmospheric sulfuric acid.

Transmissivity The hydraulic conductivity of a formation multiplied by its thickness.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page 21-6 Tables

Tables

Table 2-1 Pipeline Construction Duration T-1 Table 2-2 Estimated Vehicle Trips T-1 Table 3-1 Summary of Land Use Traversed by the Pipeline by Reach for both the Existing Alignment and Alternate Alignment(s) T-2 Table 4-1 Farmland Acreage Occurring in the Project Area T-3 Table 4-2 Leading Commodities for Gross Value of Agricultural Production T-3 Table 4-3 Summary of Potential Agricultural Resource Impacts for Construction T-4 Table 4-4 Summary of Potential Agricultural Resource Impacts for O&M T-5 Table 5-1 Summary of Potential Recreation Use Impacts for Construction T-6 Table 5-2 Summary of Potential Recreation Use Impacts for O&M T-7 Table 5-3 Summary of Recreation Impacts T-8 Table 6-1 Summary of Potential Aesthetic Impacts for Construction T-9 Table 6-2 Summary of Potential Aesthetic Impacts for O&M T-10 Table 7-1 Summary of Project Area Geology Codes T-11 Table 7-2 Summary of Potential Geology and Soil Impacts for Construction T-12 Table 7-3 Summary of Potential Geology and Soil Impacts for O&M T-13 Table 8-1 Project Area Watershed Summary T-14 Table 8-2 Historic Gaging Records for two of the Streams Draining the Project Area T-14 Table 8-3 Mean Daily Flow (cfs) by Month for Diverted Streams Draining the Project Area (1937 – 1996) T-14 Table 8-4 Summary of Potential Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts for Construction T-15 Table 8-5 Summary of Potential Hydrology and Water Quality Impacts for O&M T-16 Table 9-1 Vegetation Communities by Pipeline Reach in the Project Area T-17 Table 9-2 Stream Habitat Conditions and the Presence of Steelhead and California Red- Legged Frogs at the Stream Crossings in the Project Area T-19 Table 9-2 Stream Habitat Conditions and the Presence of Steelhead andCalifornia Red- Legged Frogs at the Stream Crossings in the Project Area (cont’d) T-20 Table 9-3 Summary of Potential Biological Impacts for Construction T-21 Table 9-4 Summary of Potential Biological Impacts for O&M T-22 Table 10-1Cultural Resource Sites Within 1/8 Mile of the NCS T-23 Table 10-2Summary of Potential Cultural Resources Impacts for Construction T-24 Table 10-3Summary of Potential Cultural Resources Impacts for O&M T-24 Table 12-1Summary of Potential Noise Impacts for Construction T-25

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-i Tables

Table 12-2Summary of Potential Noise Impacts for O&M T-25 Table 13-1Summary of Potential Hazard/Hazardous Waste Impacts for Construction T-26 Table 13-2Summary of Potential Hazard/Hazardous Waste Impacts for O&M T-27 Table 15-1Summary of Potential Public Service and Utilities Impacts for Construction T-28 Table 15-2Summary of Potential Public Service and Utilities Impacts for O&M T-29

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-ii Tables

TABLE 2-1 PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION DURATION Total Pipeline Pipeline Percent Percent Total Pipeline Below Above Pipeline Reach Below Above Constructio Length Ground Ground Ground* Ground* n Days* (Linear Ft.) (Linear Ft.)* (Linear Ft.)* Liddell 10,000 6,000 60 4,000 40 25 Laguna/Liddell 5,900 5,310 90 590 10 28 Laguna 13,000 5,850 45 7,150 55 47 Majors 11,000 2,750 25 8,250 75 35 NCP 42,250 39,825 90 4,425 10 201 • All numbers approximate and subject to change.

TABLE 2-2 ESTIMATED VEHICLE TRIPS Estimated Vehicle Estimated Vehicle Estimated Total Pipeline Reach Alternative Trips for Pipe Trips for Materials Vehicle Trips Liddell - Existing Alignment 85-100 90-100 175-200 Laguna/Liddell - Existing Alignment 50-60 55-60 105-120 Laguna/Liddell - Alternate Alignment 45-50 45-50 90-100 Laguna - Existing Alignment 105-125 110-125 215-250 Laguna - Alternate Alignment 75-90 80-90 155-180 Majors - Existing Alignment 100-115 90-100 190-215 Majors Ridge - Alternate Alignment 80-90 80-90 160-180 Majors Road - Alternate Alignment 70-80 70-80 140-160 NCP Reach 350-380 125-140 475-520

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-1 Tables

TABLE 3-1 SUMMARY OF LAND USE TRAVERSED BY THE PIPELINE BY REACH FOR BOTH THE EXISTING ALIGNMENT AND ALTERNATE ALIGNMENT(S) Land Use Types Parks/ Urban Industrial/ Reach Agriculture Unclassified Recreation Commercial LID Alt 2 – 4,990 ft 5,000 ft Existing Alignment LID Alt 3 – 4,990 ft 5,000 ft Alternate Alignment LAG Alt 2 - 6,781 ft 6,000 ft Existing Alignment LAG Alt 3 - 4,978 ft 4,000 ft Alternate Alignment LID/LAG Alt 2 - 5,893 ft Existing Alignment LID/LAG Alt 3 - 5,180 ft Alternative Alignment MAJ Alt 2 - 11,340 ft Existing Alignment MAJ Alt 3 - 11,340 ft Ridge Top Alignment MAJ Alt 4 - 9,340 ft Road Alignment NCP Alt 2 - 7,000 ft 21,500 ft 13,500 ft 1,500 ft Existing Alignment NCP Alt 3 - 7,000 ft 21,500 ft 17,000 ft 2,500 ft Alternative Alignment Source: Refer to Land Use Figure 3-2.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-2 Tables

TABLE 4-1 FARMLAND ACREAGE OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT AREA Milepost Begin Milepost Ends Reach Important Farmland Type Crosses or Borders (feet) (feet) Majors Prime Farmlanda Crosses 16,000 20,000 NCP Prime Farmland Crosses 5,900 6,300 NCP Farmland of State Importanceb Crosses 6,300 6,900 NCP Prime Farmland Crosses 6,900 8,100 NCP Farmland of State Importance Crosses 8,100 10,300 NCP Prime Farmland Crosses 13,000 14,300 NCP Farmland of State Importance Crosses 14,300 14,400 NCP Farmland of State Importance Borders 15,300 15,700 NCP Prime Farmland Crosses 15,700 16,600 NCP Farmland of State Importance Borders 17,100 17,900 NCP Farmland of State Importance Borders 18,100 20,100 NCP Prime Farmland Crosses 22,100 22,500 NCP Farmland of State Importance Crosses 22,500 23,000 NCP Farmland of State Importance Crosses 42,100 42,300 NCP Farmland of State Importance Crosses 42,900 43,300 Source: State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resources Protection, 2002. Notes: Portions of the pipeline that cross important farmland or run the boundary (borders) of important farmland are identified accordingly. a. Prime Farmland is defined by the Department of Conservation as irrigated land with the best combination of physical and chemical features able to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. b. Farmland of State Importance is defined by the Department of Conservation as irrigated land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for the production of agricultural crops.

TABLE 4-2 LEADING COMMODITIES FOR GROSS VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION (County of Santa Cruz, 2001) Agricultural Production Revenue (in millions of dollars) Berries, Strawberries $149,706 Berries, Raspberries $44,907 Nursery, Woody Ornamentals $25,894 Lettuce, Head $24,771 Nursery Products $15,477 Flowers, Cut $14,535 Apples, All $12,548 Vegetable Crops $11,610 Berries, Bushberries $11,469 Flowers, Roses (Cut Standard) $10,301 Source: California Department of Food and Agriculture, 2001.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-3 Tables

TABLE 4-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

MAJORS REGGIARDO LAGUNA LIDDELL LAGUNA/ LAGUNA MAJORS NCP Alternative/Impact Issue DIVERSIO DIVERSION DIVERSION REACH LIDDELL REACH REACH REACH N REACH Alt. 1 - No Project Increased erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Impact on agriculture land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Loss of soil productivity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Conflict with existing N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A policies Convert land to non- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A agricultural use Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Increased erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact on agriculture land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Loss of soil productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Conflict with existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 policies Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Increased erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact on agriculture land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Loss of soil productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Conflict with existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 policies Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Increased erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Impact on agriculture land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Loss of soil productivity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Conflict with existing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 policies Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-4 Tables

TABLE 4-4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL AGRICULTURAL RESOURCE IMPACTS FOR O&M

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach /Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Increased erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact on agriculture land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loss of soil productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflict with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Increased erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact on agriculture land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loss of soil productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflict with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Increased erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Impact on agriculture land 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loss of soil productivity 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conflict with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Convert land to non- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 agricultural use Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Increased erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Impact on agriculture land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Loss of soil productivity N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Conflict with existing policies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Convert land to non- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A agricultural use Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-5 Tables

TABLE 5-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Short-term disruption of recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A use Prevention of long-term recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A use Conflicts with existing policies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Disrupt the recreation experience of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A private residents who live in or near the Project area Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Short-term disruption of recreation 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 use Prevention of long-term recreation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 use Conflicts with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disrupt the recreation experience of 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 private residents who live in or near the Project area Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Short-term disruption of recreation N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 1 use Prevention of long-term recreation N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 use Conflicts with existing rec. policies N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Disrupt the recreation experience of N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 0 0 private residents who live in or near the Project area Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Short-term disruption of recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A use Prevention of long-term recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A use Conflicts with existing rec. policies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Disrupt the recreation experience of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A private residents who live in or near the Project area Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-6 Tables

TABLE 5-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL RECREATION USE IMPACTS FOR O&M Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Short-term disruption of recreation 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 use Prevention of long-term recreation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 use Conflicts with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disrupt the recreation experience of 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 private residents who live in or near the Project area

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Short-term disruption of recreation 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 use Prevention of long-term recreation 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 use Conflicts with existing policies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Disrupt the recreation experience of 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 private residents who live in or near the Project area

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Short-term disruption of recreation N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 use Prevention of long-term recreation N/A N/A N/A 0 2 2 2 2 use Conflicts with existing rec. policies N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Disrupt the recreation experience of N/A N/A N/A 2 2 0 0 0 private residents who live in or near the Project area Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Short-term disruption of recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A use Prevention of long-term recreation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A use Conflicts with existing rec. policies N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Disrupt the recreation experience of N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A private residents who live in or near the Project area Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-7 Tables

TABLE 5-3 SUMMARY OF RECREATION IMPACTS Number of Total Private Pipeline Officially Total Pipeline Estimated Residents’ Above Designated Location/Reach Length Number of Recreation Ground Recreation (linear feet) Construction Experiences (linear feet) Areas Days Affected? Affected Reggiardo Diversion 0 Laguna Diversion 0 Majors Diversion 0 No Pipeline reach 1- 10,000 100 25 0 Yes Liddell Pipeline reach 2- 5,900 590 28 0 Yes Laguna/Liddell Pipeline reach 3- 13,000 7,150 47 0 Yes Laguna Pipeline reach 4- 11,000 8,250 35 0 No Majors Pipeline reach 5- Access to six 42,250 4,425 201 No NCP beaches

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-8 Tables

TABLE 6-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna/ Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Damage to visual resources along Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is obstructed or adversely N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A affected Prevent or substantially impair the view N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Damage to visual resources along Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is obstructed or adversely 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 affected Prevent or substantially impair the view 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts 0 2 0 2 2 2 2 3 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Damage to visual resources along Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is obstructed or adversely N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 2 0 affected Prevent or substantially impair the view N/A N/A N/A 1 2 2 2 2 from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts N/A N/A N/A 1 1 3 3 2 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Damage to visual resources along Highway N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is obstructed or adversely N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A affected Prevent/ or substantially impair the view N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-9 Tables

TABLE 6-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL AESTHETIC IMPACTS FOR O&M Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Damage to visual resources along NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 2 Highway 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 obstructed or adversely affected Prevent or substantially impair the 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 view from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Damage to visual resources along 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Highway 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 obstructed or adversely affected Prevent or substantially impair the 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 view from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Damage to visual resources along N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 2 Highway 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 1 obstructed or adversely affected Prevent or substantially impair the N/A N/A N/A 1 0 0 2 2 view from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts N/A N/A N/A 1 0 0 2 3 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Damage to visual resources along N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Highway 1 Permanently alter a site so that a sensitive viewing location is N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A obstructed or adversely affected Prevent/ or substantially impair the N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A view from a sensitive location Short-term visual impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-10 Tables

TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT AREA GEOLOGY CODES Project Area Geology Code Project Area Geology Key H20 water Kcg Conglomerate (Upper Cretaceous) Kgs Shale and sandstone of Nibbs Knob area (Upper Cretaceous) QTc Continental deposits, undifferentiated (Pleistocene and Pliocene?) Qae Eolian lithofacies – Aromas sand (Pleistocene) Qaf Fluvial lithofacies – Aromas Sand (Pleistocene) Qal Alluvial deposits, undifferentiated (Holcene) Qar Aromas Sand, undivided (Pleistocene) Qb Basin deposits (Holocene) Qbs Beachsand(Holocene) Qce Eolian facies -Coastal terrace deposits (Pleistocene) Qcf Abandoned channel fill deposits (Holocene) Qcl Lowest emergent coastal terrace deposits (Pleistocene) Qcu Coastal terrace deposits, undifferentiated (Pleistocene) Qds Dune sand (Holocene) Qem Eolian deposits of Manresa Beach (Pleistocene) Qes Eolian deposits of Sunset Beach (Pleistocene) Qof Older flood-plain deposits (Holocene) Qt Terrace deposits, undifferentiated (Pleistocene) Qtl Colluvium (Holocene) Qwf Fluvial facies (Pleistocene) Qyf Younder flood-plain deposits (Holocene) Qyfo Alluvial fan deposits (Holocene) Tbl Lower sandstone member – Butano Sandstone (Eocene) Tblc Conglomerate – Butano Sandstone (Eocene) Tbm Middle siltstone member – Butano Sandstone (Eocene) Tbs Basalt (lower Miocene) Tbu Upper sandstone member – Butano Sandstone (Eocene) Tl Locatelli Formation (Paleocene) Tla Lambert Shale (lower Miocene) Tlo Lompico Sandstone (middle Miocene) Tlss Sandstone – Locatelli Formation (Paleocene) Tm Monterey Formation (middle Miocene) Tmm Sandstone of Mount Madonna area (Eocene?) Tmp Shale of Mount Pajaro area (Miocene and Oligoene) Tms Mudstone of Maymens Flat area (Eocene and Paleocene) Tp Purisima Formation (Pliocene and upper Miocene) Tps Predominantly massive sandstone Ts Siltstone and sandstone (Pliocene and upper Miocene) Tsc Santa Cruz Mudstone (Upper Miocene) Tsl San Lorenzo Formation, undivided (Oligocene and Eocene) Tsm Santa Margarita Sandstone (upper Miocene) Tsr Rices Mudstone Member (Oligocene and Eocene) Tst Twobar Shale Member (Eocene) Tvq Vaqueros Sandstone (lower Miocene and Oligocene) Tz Zayanite Sandstone (Oligocene) db Diabase (age unknown) ga Granite and adamellite (Cretaceous) gd Gneissic granodiorite (Cretaceous) hcg Hornblende – cummingtonite gabbro (Cretaceous) m Marble (Mesozoic or Paleozoic) qd Quartz diorite (Cretaceous) sch Metasedimentary rocks (Mesozoic or Paleozoic)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-11 Tables

TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Damage from slope failure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Damage from ground shaking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Increased soil erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment

Damage from slope failure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Damage from ground shaking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Increased soil erosion 0 2 2 2 3 3 3 2

Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A 2 2 N/A 2 2 Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Damage from Liquefaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Damage from slope failure N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Damage from ground shaking N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Increased soil erosion N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A N/A 2 N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Alt.4 – Alternate Alignment 2 Damage from slope failure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Damage from ground shaking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Increased soil erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-12 Tables

TABLE 7-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL GEOLOGY AND SOIL IMPACTS FOR O&M Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Damage from slope failure 0 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 Damage from ground shaking 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Increased soil erosion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re-drilling due to frac-out 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Loss/disturbance of mineral 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Resources Damage from expansive soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Damage from slope failure 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 2 Damage from ground shaking 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Increased soil erosion 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 Damage from Liquefaction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Damage from slope failure N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 0 Damage from ground shaking N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 Increased soil erosion N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 0 Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils N/A N/A N/A 0 2 2 2 2 Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 2 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Damage from slope failure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Damage from ground shaking N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Increased soil erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Re-drilling due to frac-out N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Loss/disturbance of mineral N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Resources Damage from expansive soils N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Damage from Liquefaction N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-13 Tables

TABLE 8-1 PROJECT AREA WATERSHED SUMMARY Drainage Area Watershed Pipeline Reaches (acres) Liddell Creek 2,544 Liddell Yellow Bank Creek 908 Liddell Laguna Creek 4,986 Laguna, Laguna/Liddell, NCP Scaroni Creek 189 Laguna Majors Creek 3,189 NCP Gordola Creek 347 Majors, NCP Baldwin Creek 1,843 NCP Lombardi Gulch 537 NCP Sandy Flat Gulch 888 NCP Wilder Creek 3,858 NCP Moore Creek 1,167 NCP Arroyo Seco Creek 887 NCP Pogonip Creek 327 NCP

TABLE 8-2 HISTORIC GAGING RECORDS FOR TWO OF THE STREAMS DRAINING THE PROJECT AREA Watershed Area Period of Mean Annual USGS Station Location 2 (mi ) Record Flood (cfs)1 Laguna C Nr 11161590 3.1 1970-1976 202 Davenport Majors C Nr 11161570 3.8 1970-1976 318 Santa Cruz 1 Mean annual flood data from Coast Dairies Long-Term Resource Protection and Use Plan (some data from Env. Sci. Assoc. 2001.

TABLE 8-3 MEAN DAILY FLOW (cfs) BY MONTH FOR DIVERTED STREAMS DRAINING THE PROJECT AREA (1937 – 1996) (Estimated Stream Flow Data2) Mean Location Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec (Yr) Liddell “Above”3 Div 8.4 11.4 11.0 7.8 4.6 2.8 2.1 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.8 3.5 4.8

Reg/Laguna Above 1 18.4 23.0 19.9 13.4 6.7 4.0 2.8 2.1 1.8 2.1 3.4 8.2 8.8 Div

Majors Above Div 12.1 14.4 10.9 6.7 3.3 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.8 2.7 5.9 5.4

1 Reggiardo and Laguna creeks are modeled as a single unit. 2. Linsley Kraeger & Associates estimated stream flow input data to the Confluence Model (Fiske 2003). 3. The “above” diversion location represents a common point on the East Branch of Liddell Creek located below the confluence with the springbox tributary.

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-14 Tables

TABLE 8-4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Sediment Generated by Erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Outs Work in Channel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Increased Impermeable Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Sediment Generated by Erosion N/A 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 Outs Work in Channel N/A 2 2 0 2 2 1 1 Increased Impermeable Area N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Sediment Generated by Erosion N/A N/A N/A 2 1 1 2 0 Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A N/A N/A 2 0 0 0 2 Outs Work in Channel N/A N/A N/A 0 1 1 0 1 Increased Impermeable Area N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 1 0

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Sediment Generated by Erosion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Outs Work in Channel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Increased Impermeable Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-15 Tables

TABLE 8-5 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY IMPACTS FOR O&M Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Sediment Generated by 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Erosion Sediment Generated by Frac- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outs Work in Channel 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Increased Impermeable Area 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Sediment Generated by N/A * 3 * * * * 0 Erosion Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outs Work in Channel N/A 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 Increased Impermeable Area N/A 0 * * 0 0 0 0

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Sediment Generated by N/A N/A N/A 0 0 * * 0 Erosion Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Outs Work in Channel N/A N/A N/A 0 0 1 0 0 Increased Impermeable Area N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Sediment Generated by N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A * N/A Erosion Sediment Generated by Frac- N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Outs Work in Channel N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Increased Impermeable Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-16 Tables

TABLE 9-1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES BY PIPELINE REACH IN THE PROJECT AREA Liddell Existing Liddell Alternative Dominant Sub-Dominant Dominant Subdominant Broadleaf Upper Redwood Forest Disturbed/ Industrial Redwood Forest Evergreen Forest Coyote Brush Coyote Brush Scrub/ Middle Scrub/ Broadleaf Annual Grassland Broadleaf Evergreen Annual Grassland Evergreen Forest Forest

Central Coast Live Central Coast Live Oak Woodland/ Oak Woodland/ Lower Annual Grassland Annual Grassland Broadleaf Broadleaf Evergreen Evergreen Forest Forest

Laguna Existing Laguna Alternative Dominant Sub-Dominant Dominant Subdominant

Redwood Forest/ Redwood Forest/ Upper Broadleaf Broadleaf Evergreen Evergreen Forest Forest Broadleaf Middle Agriculture/Pasture Evergreen Forest

Central Coast Live Broadleaf Broadleaf Evergreen Lower Oak Woodland/ Coyote Brush Scrub Evergreen Forest Forest Coyote Brush Scrub Laguna/ Liddell Existing Laguna/ Liddell Alternative Dominant Sub-Dominant Dominant Subdominant

Coyote Brush Broadleaf Central Coast Live Upper Scrub/ Annual Evergreen/ CCAW Oak Woodland Grassland Riparian Forest Broadleaf Middle Annual Grassland Coyote Brush Scrub Evergreen Forest Broadleaf Annual Grassland/ Coyote Brush Scrub/ Lower Evergreen Forest/ Coyote Brush Scrub Urban Urban Majors Existing Majors Alternatives 1 & 2 Dominant Sub-Dominant Dominant Subdominant

Redwood Forest/ Redwood Forest/ Annual Grassland/ Upper Broadleaf Broadleaf Evergreen Coyote Brush Scrub Evergreen Forest Forest

Redwood Middle Forest/Broadleaf Annual Grassland Evergreen Forest

Annual Grassland/ Central Coast Live Annual Grassland/ Lower Disturbed Oak Woodland Rush Meadow

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-17 Tables

Table 9-1 Vegetation Communities by Pipeline Reach in the Project Area (Cont’d)) NCP/HWY 1 & NCP/HWY 1 Alternative Dominant Sub-Dominant

Laguna Urban/ Coyote Brush Scrub Annual Grassland

Coyote Brush Scrub/ Annual Majors Disturbed Grassland

Gordola Creek Agriculture/Disturbed Coyote Brush Scrub

Coyote Brush Scrub/ CCAW Riparian Baldwin Creek Disturbed Forest CCAW Riparian Forest/ Coyote Lombardi Gulch Annual Grassland Brush Scrub

Sandy Flat Gulch Coyote Brush Scrub/ Agriculture Disturbed/ Eucalyptus

Central Coast Live Oak Woodland/ Peasley Gulch Agriculture/ Pasture Annual Grassland Broadleaf Evergreen Forest/ Annual Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Wilder Creek Grassland Forest Moore Creeks Coyote Brush Scrub/ Annual Central Coast Live Oak Woodland (West) Grassland Moore Creek Urban (East)

Arroyo Seco Urban

CCAW Riparian Forest/ Urban; Pogonip Creek Vegetation along alternative alignment mostly urban

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-18 Tables

TABLE 9-2 STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS AND THE PRESENCE OF STEELHEAD AND CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROGS AT THE STREAM CROSSINGS IN THE PROJECT AREA Location of Quality of Habitat for Habitat AT Comments Stream Creek SH/CRLF in or DS of Constructio Reach (Known Biological Crossing Name Watershed Crossings n Method Barriers) at CR or DS None/ Poor/ Proposed Reaches Fair/ Good Liddell East Branch CRLF ds The first complete barrier LID-01 None B or DD Liddell SH ds to steelhead migration is located on the Main CRLF cr/ds LID-02 Yellow Bank Fair DD Branch 1.29 miles SH ds upstream of the creek Unnamed in mouth. Plus, other partial LID-03 Rattlesnake None S barriers exist including Canyon natural barriers, culverts, and an outfall under CRLF cr/ds Hwy.1. LID-04 "Y" Fair N/A SH ds

CRLF cr/ds LAG-01 Laguna Fair B or S SH ds Laguna The first complete barrier CRLF cr/ds to steelhead migration is LAG-02 Laguna Fair B or S SH ds located at 1.43 miles upstream of the lagoon. Plus, the culvert beneath Hwy. 1, natural barriers, 3 LAG-03 Laguna SH cr Fair S smaller active diversions, and 5 additional barriers CRLF cr Good, (none LAG-04 "Y" S upstream of first complete SH ds in Y Cr.) barroer.

CRLF cr/ds Same as Above. LAG ALT-01 Laguna Fair B Laguna SH cr/ds Alternative CRLF cr Good, (none LAG-04 "Y" S SH ds in Y Cr.) Laguna/ CRLF ds Natural barriers and LAG/LID-01 Unnamed None DD or T Liddell SH ds culverts. CRLF cr LAG/LID-02 Laguna Good S SH cr CRLF ds LAG/LID-03 Laguna Fair DD SH cr LAG/LID-04 Unnamed None T Laguna/ N/A LAG/ Liddell Unnamed None T LID ALT-01 Alternative

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-19 Tables

TABLE 9-2 STREAM HABITAT CONDITIONS AND THE PRESENCE OF STEELHEAD ANDCALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROGS AT THE STREAM CROSSINGS IN THE PROJECT AREA (CONT’D)

Location of Quality of Habitat for Habitat AT or Construction Stream SH/CRLF in DS of Comments Reach Creek Name Method Crossing Watershed at Crossings (Known Biological Barriers) Proposed CR or DS None/ Poor/ Reaches Fair/ Good

The first complete barrier to steelhead migration is located at 0.71 miles upstream of the creek CRLF ds Majors MAJ-01 Gordola Poor DD mouth. Plus, natural SH ds barriers, 1 smaller active diversion, and 4 additional barriers upstream of first complete barrier. North Natural barriers, culverts CRLF cr/ds Coast NCP-01 Laguna Fair B on many of the streams, Pipeline SH ds concrete road crossings, impoundments. CRLF ds T (not in NCP-02 Majors None SH ds streambed) CRLF ds NCP-03 Gordola Fair DD SH ds CRLF cr/ds NCP-04 Baldwin Fair DD or S SH cr/ds NCP-05 Unnamed None DD Lombardi CRLF ds NCP-06 None DD Gulch SH ds North Sandy Flat CRLF cr/ds NCP-07 Fair DD Coast Gulch SH ds Pipeline Peasley CRLF ds (continued) NCP-08 Fair DD Gulch SH ds CRLF ds NCP-09 Wilder Good DD SH cr/ds Moore NCP-10 CRLF ds Poor DD (west) Moore NCP-11 CRLF ds Poor T (east) NCP-12 Arroyo Seco None S *CRLF NCP-13 Pogonip Fair DD SH ds *The crossing was not surveyed due to access limitations. CR = Present at the stream crossings DS = Present downstream of the crossings CRLF = California red-legged frog SH = Steelhead N/A = Not applicable B = Boring DD = Directional drilling T = Trenching S = Pipeline suspension

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-20 Tables

TABLE 9-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach / Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach No Project Alternative Stream crossings/aquatic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A habitat Terrestrial Habitat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A ESA (aquatic) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wetlands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Riparian corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Existing Alignment Alternative Stream crossings/aquatic 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 habitat Terrestrial habitat 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 ESA (aquatic) 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 Wetlands 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Riparian corridor 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2

Alternate Alignment Alternative-1 Stream crossings/aquatic N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 habitat Terrestrial habitat N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 3 2 ESA (aquatic) N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 2 Wetlands N/A N/A N/A 2 2 3 3 2 Riparian corridor N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 2

Alternate Alignment Alternative-2 Stream crossings/aquatic N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A habitat Terrestrial habitat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A ESA (aquatic) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Wetlands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Riparian corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Legend: 0= No Impact 1= Less than Significant Impact 2= Less than Significant with Mitigation 3= Potentially Significant Impact *= Beneficial Impact N/A= Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft EIR April 2005 Page T-21 Tables

TABLE 9-4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR O&M

Alternative/Impact Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Laguna Majors NCP Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach /Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach No Project Alternative Stream crossings/aquatic 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 habitat Terrestrial Habitat 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 ESA (aquatic) 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 Wetlands 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 Riparian corridor 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 Existing Alignment Alternative Stream crossings/aquatic 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 habitat Terrestrial habitat 1 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 ESA (aquatic) 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 Wetlands 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Riparian corridor 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 Alternate Alignment Alternative-1 Stream crossings/aquatic N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 habitat Terrestrial habitat N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 3 2 ESA (aquatic) N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 2 Wetlands N/A N/A N/A 2 2 3 3 2 Riparian corridor N/A N/A N/A 2 1 2 2 2 Alternate Alignment Alternative-2 Stream N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A crossings/aquatic habitat Terrestrial habitat N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A ESA (aquatic) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Wetlands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Riparian corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Legend: 0= No Impact 1= Less than Significant Impact 2= Less than Significant with Mitigation 3= Potentially Significant Impact *= Beneficial Impact N/A= Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-22 Tables

TABLE 10-1 CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES WITHIN 1/8 MILE OF THE NCS (Existing and Alternative Alignments) 100-200’ > 200’ from Site Name or Within 100’ of Condition Type from Project Project Number Project Area Area Area Liddell BRM Unknown BRM E Shell Midden Unknown Prehistoric Midden E Laguna None None None Laguna/Liddell CA-SCR-13 Unknown Midden E/A CA-SCR-14 Unknown Midden E/A CA-SCR-17 Unknown Midden E/A BRM Unknown BRM E/A Shell Midden Unknown Midden E/A CA-SCR-16 Unknown Midden E A CA-SCR-15 Unknown Midden E A Majors CA-SCR-131 Unknown Prehistoric E/A CA-SCR-82 Unknown Prehistoric E/A CA-SCR-28 Unknown Prehistoric E A NCP/Highway 1 P-44-000005 Unknown Midden E/A P-44-381 Intact Historic Structure E/A P-44-382 Intact Historic Structure E/A P-44-383 Intact Historic Structure E/A P-44-386 Unknown Lithic Scatter E/A P-44-401 Intact Historic Hwy 9 E/A P-44-406 Intact Historic Hwy 1 E/A Midden/Historic P-44-480 Unknown E/A Structure CA-SCR-106 Unknown Midden E A P-44-401 Intact Historic Hwy 9 E/A CA-SCR-217H Unknown Historic E/A P-44-000006 Unknown E/A P-44-407 Unknown E/A P-44-385 Unknown E/A CA-SCR-25 Unknown E/A CA-SCR-35 Unknown E/A CA-SCR-128H Unknown E/A CA-SCR-198H Unknown E/A Legend: E = Existing alignment A = Proposed alternative alignment BRM = Bedrock mortar (Defined as a mortar cup in a bedrock outcrop)

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-23 Tables

TABLE 10-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach /Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

TABLE 10-3 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL CULTURAL RESOURCES IMPACTS FOR O&M

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach /Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Impacts to Cultural Resources 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Impacts to Cultural Resources 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Impacts to Cultural Resources N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-24 Tables

TABLE 12-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Increased levels (short-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Increased levels (long-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Increased levels (short-term) N/A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Increased levels (long-term) N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Increased levels (short-term) N/A N/A N/A 3 3 3 3 3 Increased levels (long-term) N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Increased levels (short-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 N/A Increased levels (long-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/ A = Not Applicable

TABLE 12-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL NOISE IMPACTS FOR O&M

Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Major NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach s Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Increased levels (short-term) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Increased levels (long-term) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Increased levels (short-term) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Increased levels (long-term) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Increased levels (short-term) N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 2 0 Increased levels (long-term) N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 2 0

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Increased levels (short-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Increased levels (long-term) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-25 Tables

N N/A = Not Applicable

TABLE 13-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD/HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION

Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna/ Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Liddell Reach Reach Reach Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Release of hazardous N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A materials Fire hazard N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 contamination

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Release of hazardous N/A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 materials Fire hazard N/A 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 contamination Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Release of hazardous N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 materials Fire hazard N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 contamination Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Release of hazardous N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A materials Fire hazard N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A contamination

Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-26 Tables

TABLE 13-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL HAZARD/HAZARDOUS WASTE IMPACTS FOR O&M

Reggiard Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna/ Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue o Diversion Diversion Reach Liddell Reach Reach Reach Diversion Reach

Alt. 1 - No Project Release of hazardous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 materials Fire hazard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 contamination

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Release of hazardous 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 materials Fire hazard 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 contamination

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Release of hazardous N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 2 0 materials Fire hazard N/A N/A N/A 2 2 2 2 2 Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 contamination

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Release of hazardous N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A materials Fire hazard N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A Encounter subsurface N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A contamination Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-27 Tables

TABLE 15-1 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES IMPACTS FOR CONSTRUCTION Laguna/ Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors NCP Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach Reach Alt. 1 - No Project Emergency service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A impacts Utility infrastructure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A impacts Local school disruptions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Emergency service 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 impact Utility infrastructure 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 impacts Local school disruptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Emergency service N/A N/A N/A 2 3 3 2 2 impact Utility infrastructure N/A N/A N/A 0 2 2 0 2 impacts Local school disruptions N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 2 Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Emergency service N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 N/A impact Utility infrastructure N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A impacts Local school disruptions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-28 Tables

TABLE 15-2 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITIES IMPACTS FOR O&M Laguna/ NCP Reggiardo Laguna Majors Liddell Laguna Majors Alternative/Impact Issue Liddell Reac Diversion Diversion Diversion Reach Reach Reach Reach h Alt. 1 - No Project Emergency service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 impacts Utility infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 impacts Local school disruptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alt. 2 - Existing Alignment Emergency service impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Utility infrastructure 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 impacts Local school disruptions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 3 - Alternate Alignment 1 Emergency service impact N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0 Utility infrastructure N/A N/A N/A 0 0 2 0 0 impacts Local school disruptions N/A N/A N/A 0 0 0 0 0

Alt. 4 - Alternate Alignment 2 Emergency service impact N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Utility infrastructure impacts N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Local school disruptions N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A Legend: 0 = No Impact 1 = Less than Significant Impact 2 = Less than Significant with Mitigation 3 = Potentially Significant Impact * = Beneficial Impact N/A = Not Applicable

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page T-29 Figures

Figures

Figure 1-1 Regional Project Map ...... F-1 Figure 2-1 Project Base Map ...... F-2 Figure 2-2 Pipe Trench Detail...... F-3 Figure 2-3 Directional Drilling View...... F-4 Figure 2-4 Stream Crossing View...... F-5 Figure 3-1 Land Ownership ...... F-6 Figure 3-2 Land Use ...... F-7 Figure 4-1 Agricultural Lands...... F-8 Figure 5-1 Recreation ...... F-9 Figure 7-1 Geology – Map 1 ...... F-10 Figure 7-2 Geology – Map 2 ...... F-11 Figure 7-3 Geology – Map 3 ...... F-12 Figure 8-1 Project Area Watersheds...... F-13 Figure 9-1 Vegetation and Wildlife – Map 1...... F-14 Figure 9-2 Vegetation and Wildlife – Map 2...... F-15 Figure 9-3 Vegetation and Wildlife – Map 3...... F-16 Figure 9-4 Project Area Stream Crossing – Map 1 ...... F-17 Figure 9-5 Project Area Stream Crossing – Map 2 ...... F-18 Figure 9-6 Project Area Stream Crossing – Map 3 ...... F-19 Figure 13-1 Potential Leaky Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites...... F-20 Figure 14-1 Road Network in the Project Vicinity ...... F-21

North Coast System Repair Project Draft PEIR April 2005 Page F-i