PURE WATER SOQUEL: GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT AND SEAWATER INTRUSION PREVENTION PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No.: 2016112045 Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District June 2018 PURE WATER SOQUEL: GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT AND SEAWATER INTRUSION PREVENTION PROJECT Draft Environmental Impact Report Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District June 2018 Important Dates: Draft EIR Publication Date: June 29, 2018 Draft EIR Public Comment Period: June 29, 2018 to August 13, 2018 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: July 31, 2018 550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com Bend Oakland San Francisco Camarillo Orlando Santa Monica Delray Beach Pasadena Sarasota Destin Petaluma Seattle Irvine Portland Sunrise Los Angeles Sacramento Tampa Miami San Diego 160164 TABLE OF CONTENTS Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Draft Environmental Impact Report Page Acronyms and Glossary ..................................................................................................... vii Chapter 1, Summary .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 1-1 1.3 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................... 1-3 1.4 Alternatives to the Project .................................................................................. 1-3 1.5 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................ 1-32 1.6 References – Summary ................................................................................... 1-34 Chapter 2, Introduction and Background ........................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Background ....................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report ................................................... 2-6 2.4 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................... 2-6 2.5 References ...................................................................................................... 2-11 Chapter 3, Project Description .......................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3-1 3.2 Background ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Project Objectives .............................................................................................. 3-3 3.4 Project Location ................................................................................................. 3-3 3.5 Proposed Project Components .......................................................................... 3-4 3.6 Project Construction ........................................................................................ 3-23 3.7 Operations and Maintenance ........................................................................... 3-39 3.8 Intended Uses of the EIR................................................................................. 3-44 3.9 References ...................................................................................................... 3-46 Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures ...................... 4.1-1 4.1 Overview ......................................................................................................... 4.1-1 4.2 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................... 4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 4.4-1 4.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 4.5-1 4.6 Energy Conservation ...................................................................................... 4.6-1 4.7 Geology and Paleontology .............................................................................. 4.7-1 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................... 4.8-1 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials.................................................................. 4.9-1 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR i ESA / 160164 June 2018 Table of Contents Page Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures (continued) 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater ........................................................... 4.10-1 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water......................................................... 4.11-1 4.12 Land Use and Recreation ............................................................................. 4.12-1 4.13 Noise and Vibration ...................................................................................... 4.13-1 4.14 Population and Housing ................................................................................ 4.14-1 4.15 Transportation .............................................................................................. 4.15-1 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................. 4.16-1 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ....................................................................... 4.17-1 Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Overview of Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................... 5-3 5.3 References ...................................................................................................... 5-34 Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations ........................................................................... 6-1 6.1 Growth Inducing Impacts ................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................ 6-10 6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .............................................. 6-10 6.4 References ...................................................................................................... 6-12 Chapter 7, Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Approach to CEQA Alternatives Selection ......................................................... 7-2 7.3 Analysis of CEQA Alternatives .......................................................................... 7-5 7.4 Comparison of Alternatives .............................................................................. 7-23 7.5 Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Analysis ........................... 7-24 7.6 References ...................................................................................................... 7-35 Chapter 8, Report Preparers and Contributors ............................................................... 8-1 8.1 Lead Agency ...................................................................................................... 8-1 8.2 EIR Consultant................................................................................................... 8-1 8.3 EIR Contributors ................................................................................................ 8-2 Appendices A. B. C-1. C-2. C-3. D. E. NOP and Scoping Report ...........................................................................................A-1 Health Risk Assessment and Construction Emissions Estimates ...............................B-1 Special Status Species Considered for the Proposed Project ................................ C-1-1 Terrestrial and Freshwater Species Considered for the Proposed Project ............. C-2-1 Local Plans and Policies Relevant to Biological Resources .................................... C-3-1 Pure Water Soquel Model Simulation Results ........................................................... D-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures from City of Capitola and County of Santa Cruz General Plan EIRs ................................................................E-1 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR ii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Table of Contents Page List of Figures 2-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8a 3-8b 4.2-1 4.2-2 4.2-3 4.2-4 4.2-5a 4.2-5b 4.2-6 4.2-7 4.2-8 4.2-9 4.4 1a 4.4-1b 4.4-1c 4.4-1d 4.4-1e 4.4-1f 4.4-1g 4.4 2a Soquel Creek Water District Water Service Area ................................................... 2-2 Project Overview .................................................................................................... 3-5 Options for Treatment Trains ................................................................................. 3-9 Secondary Effluent Pump Station at SC WWTF................................................... 3-14 AWPF at SC WWTF Option ................................................................................. 3-15 Tertiary Treatment System at SC WWTF Option ................................................. 3-16 AWPF at Chanticleer Site ..................................................................................... 3-17 AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site............................................................. 3-18 Recharge Well Conceptual Site Plans.................................................................. 3-21 Recharge Well Conceptual Site Plans.................................................................. 3-22 Photo Location Map ............................................................................................ 4.2-3 Public View of the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility ............................ 4.2-5 Public Views of the Chanticleer Site .................................................................... 4.2-6 Public Views of the Headquarters-West Annex Site ............................................ 4.2-7 Public Views of the Recharge Well Site Options ................................................. 4.2-8 Public Views of the Recharge Well Site Options ................................................. 4.2-9 Public Views of Potential Pipeline Routes ......................................................... 4.2-10 Chanticleer Site Simulation, from Soquel Ave ................................................... 4.2-23 Headquarters-West Annex Site Simulation, from Aguazul Drive ....................... 4.2-24 Headquarters-West Annex Site Simulation, from Capitola Avenue ................... 4.2-25 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................... 4.4-5 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................... 4.4-6 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................... 4.4-7 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................... 4.4-8 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................... 4.4-9 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................. 4.4-10 Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area ................................................. 4.4-11 Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the Vicinity of the Pure Water Soquel Project ............................................................................................................ 4.4-12 4.4-2b Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the Vicinity of the Pure Water Soquel Project ............................................................................................................ 4.4-13 4.4 3 CNDDB Animal Occurrences within 2 Miles of the Project ................................ 4.4-25 4.4 4 CNDDB Plant Occurrences within 2 Miles of the Project ................................... 4.4-26 4.4 5 Critical Habitat within 2 Miles of the Project ...................................................... 4.4-33 4.7-1 Regional Fault Map ............................................................................................. 4.7-7 4.7-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Project Vicinity ............................................... 4.7-10 4.9-1 Active Hazardous Materials Sites ........................................................................ 4.9-4 4.10-1 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Boundaries .................................. 4.10-2 4.10-2 Purisima-Aromas Outcrop Areas ....................................................................... 4.10-5 4.10-3 Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-Aʹ .................................................................... 4.10-6 4.10-4 Existing Municipal Supply and Monitoring Wells and Proposed Recharge Wells .............................................................................................................. 4.10-7 4.10-5 Pumped Aquifer Units, Risk for Seawater Intrusion Based on Water Year 2017 Groundwater Levels and Shallowest Aquifer Unit with Salty Water Just Offshore ................................................................................................ 4.10-17 4.10-6 Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District A Unit Pumping ............ 4.10-42 4.10-7 Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District BC Unit Pumping ......... 4.10-43 4.10-8 Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District Purisima F/Aromas Pumping ....................................................................................................... 4.10-44 4.10-9 Particle End Points Released in A Aquifer under Cabrillo Monterey Simulations................................................................................................... 4.10-49 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR iii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Table of Contents Page List of Figures (continued) 4.10-10 Particle End Points Released in A Aquifer under Willowbrook Monterey Simulations................................................................................................... 4.10-50 4.10-11 Groundwater Level Increases in Purisima A Unit After 20 Years of Replenishment ............................................................................................. 4.10-55 4.10-12 Groundwater Level Increases in Purisima BC Unit After 20 Years of Replenishment ............................................................................................. 4.10-56 4.11-1 Surface Water Features .................................................................................... 4.11-3 4.11-2 Flood Hazards ................................................................................................. 4.11-14 4.11-3 Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding from Sea Level Rise ................................. 4.11-17 4.12-1 Coastal Zone within the Project Vicinity ............................................................ 4.12-3 4.13-1 Effects of Noise on People ................................................................................ 4.13-2 4.13-2 Noise Measurement Locations .......................................................................... 4.13-8 4.13-3 County of Santa Cruz Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment ................................................................................................. 4.13-11 4.13-4 City of Capitola Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment ..... 4.13-15 5-1 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................... 5-7 List of Tables 1-1 1-2 2-1 3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-7 3-8 3-9 4.2-1 4.3-1 4.3-2 4.3-3 4.3-4 4.3-5 4.3-6 4.4-1 4.4-2 4.4-3 4.4-4 4.4-5 4.4-6 4.5-1 4.6-1 4.7-1 Summary of Project-Level Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................... 6 Summary of Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................... 1-32 Summary of Scoping Comments .......................................................................... 2-12 Overview of Treatment Configuration Options at Each Potential Location ............. 3-8 Components for Treatment Configurationsa ........................................................ 3-11 Pipeline Alignment Options .................................................................................. 3-19 Components for Well Site Options ....................................................................... 3-23 Potential Construction Staging Areas ................................................................... 3-25 Construction Assumptions for the Proposed Project ............................................ 3-26 Summary of Pipeline Route Option Construction Requirements .......................... 3-32 Construction Water Demand ................................................................................ 3-38 Treatment Process and Cleaning Chemicals and Annual Usage ......................... 3-41 Summary of Visual Sensitivity Findings............................................................. 4.2-12 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Project Area (2012–2016) ....... 4.3-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards and Air Basin Attainment Status ......................... 4.3-8 Summary of Impacts – Air Quality ..................................................................... 4.3-15 Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ..................... 4.3-17 Maximum Health Risk for Sensitive Receptors from Construction Emissions ... 4.3-21 Maximum Health Risk for Sensitive Receptors from Construction Emissions – after Implementation of Mitigation .............................................................. 4.3-21 Special-Status Species with a Moderate or High Potential to Occur in the Study Area ..................................................................................................... 4.4-20 Critical Habitat in the Vicinity of the Project Site ................................................ 4.4-35 Applicable Regional and Local Land Use Plans and Policies Relevant to Biological Resources ...................................................................................... 4.4-41 Summary of Impacts – Biological Resources .................................................... 4.4-45 Minimum Success Criteria for Vegetation Restoration ...................................... 4.4-61 Summary of Potential Tree Removal................................................................. 4.4-68 Summary of Impacts – Cultural Resources ....................................................... 4.5-22 Summary of Impacts – Energy Demand and Conservation ................................. 4.6-7 Summary of Soil Properties ................................................................................. 4.7-2 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR iv ESA / 160164 June 2018 Table of Contents Page List of Tables (continued) 4.7-2 4.7-3 4.7-4 4.7-5 4.8-1 4.8-2 4.8-3 4.8-4 4.8-5 4.9-1 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale ......................................................................... 4.7-5 Nearby Active Faults ........................................................................................... 4.7-6 Estimated Seismic Ground Motions .................................................................... 4.7-8 Summary of Impacts – Geology and Paleontology............................................ 4.7-20 California GHG Emissions (million metric tons CO2e) ......................................... 4.8-3 Summary of Impacts – GHG Emissions ............................................................ 4.8-11 Total GHG Emissions from Project Construction............................................... 4.8-12 Total GHG Emissions per Year from Project Operations .................................. 4.8-13 Total Amortized GHG Emissions ....................................................................... 4.8-13 Federal Laws and Regulations Related to Hazardous Materials Management .................................................................................................... 4.9-8 4.9-2 State Laws and Regulations Related to Hazardous Materials Management ....... 4.9-9 4.9-3 Summary of Impacts – Hazards and Hazardous materials ............................... 4.9-14 4.10-1 Purisima Formation Hydrogeologic Units .......................................................... 4.10-4 4.10-2 Summary of 2014 Groundwater Replenishment Regulations .......................... 4.10-26 4.10-3 Summary of Impacts – Hydrology Resources – Groundwater ......................... 4.10-38 4.11-1 Designated Beneficial Uses of Surface Water Bodies in the Project Vicinity..... 4.11-7 4.11-2 Santa Cruz WWTF 2014 Monthly Flows ......................................................... 4.11-11 4.11-3 Water Quality Objectives in the 2016 Ocean Plan........................................... 4.11-23 4.11-4 Summary of Impacts – Hydrology Resources – Surface Water ...................... 4.11-41 4.11-5 Predicted Operational Discharge Effluent Water Quality vs. NPDES Permit Effluent Limitations ....................................................................................... 4.11-56 4.12-1 Designated Land Uses of Project Sites ............................................................. 4.12-4 4.12-2 Parks and Open Space within 0.25 Miles of Project Components .................... 4.12-5 4.12-3 Summary of Impacts – Land Use and Recreation ........................................... 4.12-12 4.12-4 California Coastal Act Policy Goals ................................................................. 4.12-13 4.12-5 Applicable County of Santa Cruz County – Relevant Plans and Policies ........ 4.12-14 4.12-6 Applicable City of Santa Cruz Land Use Plans and Policies ........................... 4.12-15 4.12-7 Applicable Land Use Plans and Policies ......................................................... 4.12-18 4.13-1 15-Minute Short-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results ................................ 4.13-9 4.13-2 24-Hour Long-Term Ambient Noise Monitoring Results .................................. 4.13-10 4.13-3 County of Santa Cruz Maximum Allowable Noise Exposure Stationary Noise Sources ........................................................................................................ 4.13-12 4.13-4 Summary of Impacts – Noise and Vibration .................................................... 4.13-18 4.13-5 Reference Construction Equipment Noise Levels – (50 feet from source) ...... 4.13-19 4.13-6 Summary of Estimated Noise Levels at Sensitive Receptors During Project Construction without Mitigation .................................................................... 4.13-21 4.13-7 Summary of Construction Noise Levels Compared to the Applied Temporary Substantial Increase over Ambient Noise Threshold .................................... 4.13-31 4.13-8 Summary of Operational Noise Exposure at Sensitive Receptors Locations – Stationary Sources ....................................................................................... 4.13-38 4.13-9 Previously Recorded Historic Buildings Along the Pipeline Alternatives ......... 4.13-41 4.13-10 Summary of Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receptors During Construction ..... 4.13-42 4.13-11 Operational Stationary Noise Sources Increase of Over Ambient ................... 4.13-43 4.14-1 Population, Housing, and Labor Force in Santa Cruz County ........................... 4.14-2 4.14-2 Projected Population in Santa Cruz County ...................................................... 4.14-3 4.14-3 Summary of Impacts – Population and Housing ............................................... 4.14-6 4.15-1 Characteristics of Roadways in the Project Area .............................................. 4.15-2 4.15-2 Summary of Impacts – Transportation .............................................................. 4.15-9 4.15-3 Estimated Daily Vehicle Trips During Project Construction and Facility Operation & Maintenance............................................................................. 4.15-14 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR v ESA / 160164 June 2018 Table of Contents Page List of Tables (continued) 4.16-1 4.17-1 5-1 5-2 6-1 6-2 6-3 7-1 7-2 7-3 Summary of Impacts – Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................. 4.16-3 Summary of Impacts – Utilities and Service Systems ....................................... 4.17-7 Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................... 5-4 Summary of Cumulative Impacts............................................................................ 5-9 AMBAG Population Projections .............................................................................. 6-4 Demographic Forecast for District Water Service Area .......................................... 6-4 Projected Soquel Creek Water District Water Supply and Demand (afy) 2020-2040 ........................................................................................................... 6-5 CEQA Alternatives ................................................................................................. 7-6 Comparison of the Environmental Impacts of the CEQA Alternatives .................... 7-7 Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration ...................... 7-26 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR vi ESA / 160164 June 2018 ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY Acronyms and Abbreviations °F Fahrenheit AADT annual average daily traffic AB Assembly Bill abh (tree) average breast height ac-ft Acre feet ACM asbestos-containing materials ADW Average Dry Weather afy acre-feet per year ALS Advances Life Support AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments amsl above mean sea level APE Area of Potential Effects APN assessor’s parcel number AQMP Air Quality Management Plan ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials AWPF Advanced Water Purification Facility AWWA American Water Works Association Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region BMP Best Management Practices CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CaCl2 Calcium Chloride CARB California Air Resources Board CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Caltrans California Department of Transportation Cal EPA California Environmental Protection Agency Cal/OSHA California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR vii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary CAS Climate Action Strategy CBC California Building Code CCA California Coastal Act CCA Critical Coastal Areas CCC California Coastal Commission CCE Community Choice Energy CCLEAN Central Coast Long-term Environmental Assessment Network CCR California Code of Regulations CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDHS California Department of Health Services CDP Coastal Development Permit CDPH California Department of Public Health CDMG California Division of Mines and Geology Central Fire Central Fire Protection District CEC Constituent of Emerging Concern CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CGP Construction General Permit CGS California Geological Survey CHP California Highway Patrol CIWMB California Integrated Waste Management Board CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CMP Congestion Management Plan CMU concrete masonry unit CO2 carbon dioxide CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency CUWCC California Urban Water Conservation Council CWA Clean Water Act CWD Central Water District CWP Community Water Plan Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR viii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary CY cubic yards CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dbh (tree) diameter at breast height DDW Division of Drinking Water DDT Dieldrin and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane DEET N,N-diethyl-metatoluamide District Soquel Creek Water District Dm initial dilution DO Dissolved Oxygen DOF Department of Finance DOGGR Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources DOT U.S. Department of Transportation DPM Diesel Particulate Matter Draft EIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control DWD Deep Water Desal, LLC DWR Department of Water Resources DWSAP Drinking Water Source Assessment Program EDD Employment Development Department EFH Essential Fish Habitat EHS Environmental Health Services EIR Environmental Impact Report EMS Emergency Medical Services EMT Emergency Medical Technician ESA Endangered Species Act ESA Environmental Science Associates ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas ESL Environmental Screening Level EQ Tank Equalization Tank FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FTE Full-Time Equivalent Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR ix ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary g gravity GHG greenhouse gas GRRP Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan HASP Health and Safety Plans HCD Department of Housing and Community Development HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HDD horizontal directional drilling HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan HMMP hazardous materials management plan HP horsepower IBC International Building Code IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPR Indirect Potable Reuse in/sec inches per second IRP Integrated Resources Plan IS Initial Study LBP lead-based paint LCP Local Coastal Program LF Linear Feet LOS level of service LRA Local Responsibility Area LRP Legally Responsible Person LS Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM Less than Significant impact with Mitigation LUP linear underground projects LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank database MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District MBCP Monterey Bay Community Power MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District MCL Maximum Contaminant Level MCY million cubic yards MEP maximum extent practicable MF Microfiltration Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR x ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary MGA Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency mgd million gallons per day mg/L milligrams per liter ML Richter magnitude MMDP Materials Management Disposal Plan MMP Mitigation and Monitoring Plan MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 MRZ Mineral Resource Zone MS4s municipal separate storm sewer systems MSA Magnuson-Stevens Act MTBE methyl tert-butyl ether MTL monitoring trigger levels Mw Moment Magnitude MWh/yr megawatt hours per year NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards N/A Not Applicable NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine NEL numeric effluent limitation NFPA National Fire Protection Association NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NI No Impact NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NPS Nonpoint Source NRCS National Resource Conservation Service NWIC Northwest Information Center NWRI National Water Research Institute OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OTB Ohlone tiger beetle PAH polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xi ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary PCB polychlorinated biphenyl PCE tetrachloroethylene PHG Public Health Goal PHWW peak hour wet weather PGA peak ground acceleration ppb parts per billion ppd pounds per day ppt parts per thousand PPV peak particle velocity PRC Public Resources Code Project Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration psu practical salinity units RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RRT Response Retention Time RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation RO Reverse Osmosis ROW Right of Way RPM revolutions per minute RSL Rural Services Line RSL Regional Screening Levels RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board QSD Qualified SWPP Practitioner SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SB Senate Bill SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SCCDPW Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works SCCEHS Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services SCCFCWCD Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District SCCRSWS Santa Cruz County Recycling and Solid Waste Services SCCRTC Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission SCCSD Santa Cruz County Sanitation District SCCFD Santa Cruz County Fire Department SCMCGB or Basin Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin SCMTD Santa Cruz Metro Transit District Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary SIP State Implementation Plan SCWD Santa Cruz Water Department SC WWTF Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility SDC seismic design category SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act SGMP Soil and Groundwater Management Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act SNMP Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SPCC Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure SPLP Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure SqCWD or District Soquel Creek Water District SRA State Responsibility Area STLC Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration SU Significant and Unavoidable impact SUM Significant and Unavoidable impact with implementation of Mitigation SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWMP Stormwater Management Plan/Program SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TAC Toxic Air Contaminant TCP Traffic Control Plan TDS total dissolved solids TMDL Total Daily Maximum Load TOC Total Organic Carbon TSS total suspended solid TTLC Total Threshold Limit Concentration TTS Tertiary Treatment System UBC Uniform Building Code UF Ultrafiltration ug/L micrograms per liter USA North Underground Service Alert – Northern California USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USGS U.S. Geological Survey Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xiii ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USL Urban Services Line USPS U.S. Postal Service UWMP Urban Water Management Plan UV AOP Ultraviolet light-based advanced oxidation process VMT vehicle miles traveled WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WET Whole Effluent Toxicity WGCEP Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities WQO water quality objective XRD x-ray diffraction ZID zone of initial dilution Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xiv ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary Glossary A-weighted decibel (dBA): Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum, human response is factored into sound descriptions in a process called “A-weighting,” expressed as “dBA.” The dBA, or A-weighted decibel, refers to a scale of noise measurement that approximates the range of sensitivity of the human ear to sounds of different frequencies. acre-foot/year: The amount of water that covers one acre of land one foot deep in water, which equates to 325,851 gallons. Advanced Purification: A wastewater treatment process which treats water to drinking standards. alluvium: Consists of unconsolidated mixtures of gravel, sand, clay, and silt typically deposited by streams. asbestos: A term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous materials found in many parts of California, some of which have been found to be cancer-causing agents. aquifer: A geologic rock formation (or, group of rock formations or part of a formation) that contains groundwater in the spaces between sediment grains, in voids, or in fractures. Use of the term aquifer is usually restricted to those water-bearing formations capable of yielding water in sufficient quantity to constitute a usable supply source. aquifer unit: An aquifer is often composed of interbedded geologic layers of varying composition (i.e. clays, silts, sands) referred to herein as aquifer units. Although the boundaries between aquifer units do not generally represent sharp demarcations of waterbearing and nonwater bearing sediments, the permeability and transmissivity of different aquifer units can vary. aquitard: An interbedded geologic formation within an aquifer, such as a claystone or siltstone layer, that has very low permeability and through which water cannot move. Brine concentrate or RO Concentrate: A byproduct of the wastewater treatment process, created by removing the dissolved salt ions from the waste stream. casing: A plastic or steel tube that is permanently inserted in the well after drilling. Its size is specified according to its inside diameter. coastal area: In this EIR, the coastal area refers to the interface between the land and the sea, where groundwater quality is most easily influenced by saltwater. The coastal area extends from the shoreline about one-half mile inland. Highway 1 is the boundary line for the coastal area. design capacity: The maximum size or capacity to which a facility or structure is designed, but which may or may not be realized during operation due to unforeseen conditions. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xv ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary ephemeral streams: Streams that flow briefly during and immediately following storm events. Equalization Tank (EQ Tank): A tank used to ensure a constant output flow of water and concentrations. gravity flow: The use of gravity to produce pressure and water flow. A storage tank is elevated above the point of use, so that water will flow with no further pumping required. A booster pump may be used to increase pressure. Groundwater replenishment/recharge: A hydrologic process in which water moves downward from surface water to groundwater. Groundwater basin: An area underlain by permeable materials capable of furnishing a significant supply of groundwater to wells or storing a significant amount of water. hydrogeology: The study of the interrelationships of geologic materials and processes with water, especially groundwater. Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR): Recycled water treated to drinking water standards, which is blended with other environmental systems such as river, reservoir, or in the case of the project, a groundwater basin, before the water is reused. Level of service (LOS): A qualitative description of a facility’s performance based on average delay per vehicle, vehicle density, or volume-to-capacity ratios. Levels of service range from LOS A, which indicates free-flow or excellent conditions with short delays, to LOS F, which indicates congested or overloaded conditions with extremely long delays. microfiltration (MF): A type of physical filtration process where a contaminated fluid is passed through a special pore-sized membrane to separate microorganisms and suspended particles from process liquid. Similar to ultrafiltration; but with a larger pore size range. overdraft: A condition in which groundwater use exceeds the amount of recharge into an aquifer, which leads to a decline in groundwater level. Pounds per Square Inch (PSI): Vertical lift in a water supply and distribution system. 2.31 vertical feet = 1 PSI. Pump Station: A facility used to move water against gravity from one location to another. Purification treatment: a process that produces high-quality drinking water using the most advanced treatment processes available. Though technologies can vary, many systems use water purification that includes three processes: microfiltration, reverse osmosis, and ultraviolet light/advanced oxidation. Recharge well: wells that would transmit the water down into the groundwater basin at low pressure to create a seawater barrier and replenish the groundwater basin. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xvi ESA / 160164 June 2018 Acronyms and Glossary reverse osmosis (RO): a water purification technology that uses a semipermeable membrane to remove ions, molecules, and larger particles from water. riparian: The land adjacent to a natural watercourse such as a river or stream. Riparian areas support vegetation that provides important wildlife habitat, as well as important fish habitat when sufficient to overhang the bank. saltwater/freshwater interface: The groundwater zone along the coastal margin where fresh groundwater and ocean saltwater meet. Groundwater in this zone is brackish. seawater intrusion: The mixing of saltwater and freshwater in a groundwater aquifer resulting from overpumping of the aquifer SCADA system: A computer system used for gathering and analyzing real time data. Production wells and storage tanks in the Soquel Creek Water District production and distribution system are monitored and controlled by a SCADA system. special-status species: Several species known to occur within the general region of the program area are accorded “special status” because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to habitat loss or population decline. Some of these species receive specific protection in federal and/or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “sensitive species” or “species of special concern” on the basis of adopted policies of federal, state, or local resource agencies. These species are referred to collectively as “special-status species.” Subsurface application: Use of a recharge well to replenish an aquifer. This is as opposed to a recharge pond or another surface application of water to replenish an aquifer. sustainable yield: The amount of groundwater that can be withdrawn from an aquifer on a longterm/sustained basis without negative impacts to groundwater quality or quantity, and without creating an undesired effect. In practice, the sustainable yield should be less than average annual recharge. Tertiary treatment: Tertiary treatment is the advanced treatment process, following secondary treatment of wastewater, before it is recycled or discharged to the environment. Tertiary treatment includes removal of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen and practically all suspended and organic matter from wastewater. ultrafiltration (UF): A step in the treatment process to treat secondary effluent to tertiary standards. The UF process involves water being forced through microscopic pores in a series of polymeric hollow fiber membranes. Similar to microfiltration; but with a smaller pore size range. ultraviolet light-based advanced oxidation process (UV AOP): A treatment process that typically involves the combination of ultraviolet light with a chemical oxidant (e.g., hydrogen peroxide or sodium hypochlorite) for disinfection of trace pollutants. wellhead: Top of the well, at ground level. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR xvii ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 1 Summary This Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) assesses the potential environmental impacts of Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project) proposed by the Soquel Creek Water District (District). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) statutes and guidelines (California Code of Regs., Title 14 Public Resources Code Section 15000 et seq., (“CEQA Guidelines”). The District is the lead agency for this CEQA process. 1.1 Project Objectives The primary objective of the Project is to recharge the local groundwater basin with 1,500 acrefeet per year (afy) of purified water for indirect potable reuse (IPR) and thereby improve the groundwater basin’s reliability as a water supply source. The specific objectives of the Project are to: • Replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA); • Develop an affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant supplemental water source, which contributes to the diversification of the District water supply portfolio and enhances water supply resiliency; • Continue to provide District customers with a high-quality and safe water supply; and • Provide additional environmental benefits, such as to surface and marine waters. 1.2 Summary of the Proposed Project 1.2.1 Background The Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project) is a water supply project that would supplement natural recharge of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin with purified water. The Project would help increase the sustainability of the District’s groundwater sources, upon which it currently relies for 100-percent of its water supply, reduce the degree of overdraft conditions in the local groundwater basin, protect against further seawater intrusion of the groundwater basin, and promote beneficial reuse by reducing discharge of treated wastewater to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The Project would provide sufficient treatment capacity to offset the groundwater supply impacts Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary attributable to District pumping. The project is sponsored by the District, a County Water District formed under Section 30000 et. seq. of the California Water Code providing potable drinking water and groundwater resource management in a portion of Santa Cruz County, California. The District’s service area includes portions of the City of Capitola and the unincorporated communities of Aptos, La Selva Beach, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, Seacliff, and Soquel. The District’s groundwater supply is currently in a state of critical overdraft and the District has declared a Critical Overdraft Groundwater Emergency (ongoing since 2014), meaning more water has been extracted from the aquifers than is added by the natural rate of recharge via rainfall, resulting in depressed groundwater levels. In addition, and related to the overdraft conditions, the District has detected seawater intrusion in its groundwater supply aquifers at some coastal monitoring wells and recent geophysical mapping has confirmed. Newer data now shows the seawater intrusion has not been detected on shore, but that it is occurring along the entire coastline of the District’s service area immediately offshore. Hydrologic analysis and evaluations have concluded that a supplemental water supply is required to restore groundwater levels -, and aid in meeting the mandates of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) that the basin be sustainable by 2040. Based on current hydrologic evaluations and its desired level of risk/uncertainty, the District plans to limit its net average groundwater pumping to no more than 2,300 acre-feet per year (afy) to contribute to basin recovery based on the proportion of its basin consumptive use; the District would need to secure approximately 1,500 afy of supplemental supply to achieve this pumping goal (WSC, 2015). An estimated 3,000 afy of supplemental supply could be required to address basin-wide groundwater overdraft. Plans to achieve basinwide sustainability are currently being evaluated and refined through an independent effort under the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA). 1.2.2 Project Description The Project would supplement natural recharge of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin with purified water. The purified water would be produced from existing secondary effluent from the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) and delivered to treatment facilities located in either the City of Santa Cruz or unincorporated Santa Cruz County. Purified water would recharge the aquifer. The Project setting is predominantly urban, characterized by mostly residential and commercial development, interspersed with patches of more naturalistic undeveloped areas primarily along major drainages and riparian corridors. The key Project components under consideration (source water, treatment, conveyance, and recharge and monitoring wells) are presented in more detail in Chapter 3, Project Description. The District is presently considering one or more options for each of these Project components. Based upon information obtained through the environmental analysis, additional engineering feasibility and cost considerations, and continued community engagement, the District would refine Project components under consideration. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary 1.3 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Table 1-1 summarizes the impacts of the Project. A summary of the cumulative impacts and the Project contribution to those impacts, as applicable, is presented in Table 1-2. For each impact considered to be significant or potentially significant, the table summarizes the recommended mitigations. Tables 1-2 and 1-2 are intended to provide a summary of the Project impacts and mitigation measures that are described in detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures and Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts; please refer to hose chapters for complete discussion. 1.4 Alternatives to the Project This information can be found in Chapter 7 and presents the alternatives analysis for the Proposed Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project. This section sets forth the objectives of the Project, summarizes its significant impacts, discusses the alternatives considered but eliminated from further analysis, describes the range of alternatives considered, and compares the impacts of the alternatives evaluated to the impacts of the Project. The State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(a), state that an EIR must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the project, that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives, but that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the project. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a Project. Rather, it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The CEQA Guidelines further state that the specific alternative of “no project” shall also be evaluated. The EIR must evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives and include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the impacts of the Project. This chapter is organized into the following sections: Section 7.1, Introduction, provides an overview of CEQA requirements pertaining to the identification and analysis of alternatives; Section 7.2, Approach to CEQA Alternatives Selection, describes the process of developing a reasonable range of Project alternatives; Section 7.3, Analysis of CEQA Alternatives, describes the project alternatives analyzed; Section 7.4, Comparison of Alternatives, identifies the environmentally superior alternative; Section 7.5, Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Analysis, describes the alternatives considered but screened out due to infeasibility or inability to meet project objectives; and Section 7.6, References. This section also includes the objectives of the Project and a summary of significant impacts of the Project by topical area. The reasonable range of alternatives that would be able to attain most of the Project’s objectives but also avoid or lessen any of the Project’s significant environmental effects are summarized below. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary 1.4.1 Alternative 1: No Project State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires a “No Project” alternative be evaluated in a Draft EIR. Under Alternative 1, the District would not construct any part of the project. No new water purification facilities, pipelines, or recharge wells would be built, and the 1,500 acre-feet per year (afy) of advanced purified water would not be produced. The groundwater basin would continue to be in a state of overdraft. No project benefits related to a replenished groundwater basin would occur, such as prevention of seawater intrusion and the creation of a sustainable water supply. This alternative would not meet any of the project objectives. 1.4.2 Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Surface Water Purchase Under Alternative 2, the District would construct a 1,200 afy AWPF and would purchase 300 afy of surface water from the City of Santa Cruz. The City of Santa Cruz has Pre-1914 water rights to North coast water sources, providing a source of water that could be available within a reasonable time frame. The District is currently implementing a 5-year pilot study to purchase a limited amount of water from the City. For Alternative 2, this agreement would need to be extended by approximately 50 years and would require additional discussion and commitments by the City and the District, including the guarantee that water would be available during drought and nondrought conditions. Under this alternative, slight reductions in the Project’s treatment facility components would be made but the same distribution pipelines would be required as the proposed Project, as well as up to 3 recharge wells for the purified water that would be produced. Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives. 1.4.3 Alternative 3: Local Seawater/Brackish Desalination Plant Under Alternative 3, the District would construct a desalination plant or brackish water desalination plant to supplement or replace the water supply of the proposed Project. The District would not construct a new AWPF, recharge well facilities, or distribution pipelines. The District would produce a sustained capacity of approximately 1,500 afy. Alternative 3 would meet most of the project objectives. 1.4.4 Comparison of Alternatives and Environmentally Superior Alternative The State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project. To determine the environmentally superior alternative, the impacts of all the alternatives were compared to determine which alternative would have the least adverse effects: • Alternative 1 would eliminate the short term construction effects relative to the proposed project. However, under Alternative 1 the groundwater basin would continue to be over drafted because groundwater pumping would continue at existing rates, without groundwater replenishment and creation of a freshwater barrier. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary • Alternative 2 would slightly reduce short-term construction effects relative to the Project but would also introduce different impacts with a new long-term surface water use that would result in a reduction in stream flow volumes, which could affect fisheries and wetland habitat. • Alternative 3 would reduce some of the short-term construction impacts of the Project, but would also introduce different impacts than the proposed project related to operation of the desalination plant. These operational impacts include potential adverse effects on specialstatus species, degradation of water quality, increased energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and exposure to hazardous materials. If the brackish facility is chosen, then seawater intrusion could move farther inland, potentially impacting groundwater wells. While Alternative 1 reduced the environmental impacts from the Project, it was not chosen since it did not achieve the project objectives. While Alternatives 2 and 3 would reduce the construction impacts of the project, these alternatives would have other long-term impacts associated with surface water and desalination; thus, the proposed Project has less impacts overall than any of the alternatives and is the environmentally superior alternative. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Aesthetics, 4.2 Impact 4.2-1: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.2-2: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-AES: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to aesthetic resources. LS No mitigation required. Air Quality, 4.3 Impact 4.3-1: The Project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants that could contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard during construction. LSM Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Construction Emissions Reduction Plan The District (and/or its construction contractor(s)) shall develop and implement a Construction Emissions Reduction Plan to substantiate that Project construction- related NOx emissions would not exceed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD)’s significance threshold of 137 pounds per day. The plan shall identify a feasible approach to reduce daily emissions that includes limits on the amount of construction activity that shall be conducted simultaneously on any given day, and if necessary to reduce emissions to below the NOx significance threshold, include a commitment for certain diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment of more than 50 horsepower to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 emission standards. The plan shall identify the parameters for phasing construction activities associated with each of the Project components to reduce daily construction emissions of NOx. For example, limiting daily construction activities to activities at one pipeline site and at either the Chanticleer Site or at one of the well sites would be sufficient to reduce NOx emissions to less than 137 pounds per day. In addition, although off-road construction equipment at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites would be required to meet USEPA Tier 4 emission standards or otherwise be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters per requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, the Construction Emissions Reduction Plan may include an additional commitment to use a certain percentage of Tier 4 compliant equipment associated with pipeline construction. The identified construction phasing parameters and the percentage of Tier 4 compliant equipment associated with pipeline construction would be substantiated within the Plan to define how the resulting emissions would be less than 137 pounds NOx per day using either the air emissions calculations prepared for the Environmental Impact Report or other air emissions calculations estimated using the CalEEMod emissions model. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-6 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Air Quality, 4.3 (cont.) If the Plan includes a commitment that a certain percentage of pipeline-related off-road equipment would be Tier 4 compliant, then it shall identify the initial pipeline construction equipment listing with each off-road unit’s horsepower, certified tier specification status, and the associated maximum daily NOx emissions. As new or replacement construction equipment are required, the District shall document each unit’s horsepower, certified engine tier status, and associated maximum daily NOx emissions, consistent with the Plan prior to use on the Project. Impact 4.3-1 (cont.) Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions To ensure that idling time for on road vehicles with a gross vehicular weight rating of 10,000 pounds or greater does not exceed the fiveminute limit established in Section 2485 of Title 13 CCR Section 2485, and that idling time for off-road engines does not exceed the five minute-limit established in Title 13 CCR Section 2449(d)(3), the District and/or its construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a written idling policy and distribute it to all equipment operators. Clear signage of these requirements shall be provided for construction workers at all access points to construction areas. Impact 4.3-2: The Project would generate a long-term increase of criteria pollutant emissions during operations. LS Impact 4.3-3: Project construction activities could conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan. LSM No mitigation required. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Equipment with Tier 4 Engine Standards (see Impact 4.3-1, above, for description.) Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions (see Impact 4.3-1, above, for description.) Impact 4.3-4: Project construction could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. LSM Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 would apply to all on-site construction activities at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites. Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Equipment with Tier 4 Engines. The District (and/or its construction contractor(s)) shall ensure that any Project-related diesel-powered equipment used during construction activities at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and/or Monterey Avenue Recharge Well sites have engines that meet USEPA-certified Tier 4 standards or are otherwise equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters. Impact 4.3-5: The Project would not be expected to create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LS No mitigation required. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-7 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Air Quality, 4.3 (cont.) Impact CU-AQ: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to air quality. LS No mitigation required. Biological Resources, 4.4 Impact 4.4-1: Project construction and operation could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as candidate, sensitive or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LSM Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Perform preconstruction nesting bird surveys in areas that provide suitable habitat. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 applies to all Project components. Project construction activities should avoid the nesting season of February 15 through August 31, if feasible. If seasonal avoidance is not possible, then no sooner than 30 days prior to the start of any Project activity, a biologist experienced in conducting nesting bird surveys shall survey the Project area and all accessible areas within 500 feet for nesting birds. If nesting birds are identified, the biologist shall define a suitable protective buffer around the nest and no activities shall occur within this buffered area. The buffer area limits would ensure that construction activities would not cause an adult to abandon an active nest or young or change an adult’s behavior so it could not care for an active nest or young. Typical buffers are 150 feet for songbirds and 300 feet for raptors, but may be decreased in coordination with CDFW according to site-specific, Project-specific, activity-specific considerations such as visual barriers between the nest and the type of activity, decibel levels associated with the activity relative to baseline noise levels, and the species of nesting bird and its tolerance of the activity. Construction activities that are conducted within any reduced buffers may be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor, until the biological monitor determines that the reduced buffer is effective. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Perform preconstruction bat surveys. Applies to Headquarters-West Annex site, Chanticleer site, conveyance pipeline stream crossings 3 - 18, and the Willowbrook Lane. Twin Lakes Church, and Cabrillo College South Recharge Well sites. In advance of tree and structure removal, a preconstruction survey for special-status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites within the Project site. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/or structures to be removed under the Project, the following measures shall be implemented: NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR • Removal of trees and structures shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15, and outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 – August 31) and outside of months of winter torpor (approximately October 15 – February 28), to the extent feasible. • If removal of trees and structures during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site where tree and structure removal is planned, a nodisturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by the qualified biologist. • The qualified biologist shall be present during tree and structure removal if active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibernation purposes, are present. Trees and structures with active roosts shall be removed only when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur for three days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-8 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) • Removal of trees with active or potentially active roost sites shall follow a two-step removal process: 1. On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be cut only using chainsaws 2. On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other equipment (e.g. excavator or backhoe). • Removal of structures containing or suspected to contain active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibernation purposes, shall be dismantled under the supervision of the qualified biologist in the evening and after bats have emerged from the roost to forage. Structures shall be partially dismantled to significantly change the roost conditions, causing bats to abandon and not return to the roost. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Provide Construction Monitoring near Sensitive Habitats. Applies to sensitive habitats within the Project site, including conveyance pipeline stream crossings, and coastal terrace prairie. Construction activities, including equipment staging, spoils piles, parking or development of bore pits, occurring off pavement and within 100 feet of mixed riparian woodland and within 100 feet of coastal terrace prairie habitat between 7th Ave. and 17th Ave. shall be monitored by a qualified biologist. Prior to the initiation of construction, the District and/or representatives of the District shall retain a qualified biologist to oversee compliance with avoidance and minimization measures for all special-status species and sensitive habitats. The qualified biologist shall be onsite daily during all fencing, grading and ground disturbance activities in the above areas. The qualified biologist shall have in their possession a copy of all compliance measures while work is being conducted onsite, and shall ensure that District’s onsite representatives and contractors also maintain copies of the compliance measures on the site. To facilitate the qualified biologist’s role, District shall ensure that the qualified biologist is fully apprised of all decisions that change or materially affect the schedule, methods, and location of work that is subject to the protective measures for biological resources. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. Applies to the entire Project area including water purification facilities, conveyance system and recharge wells. Prior to starting work, all construction workers at the Project areas shall attend a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program developed and presented by a qualified biologist. The program shall include information on federal and state-listed species in the study area, as well as other special-status wildlife and plant species and sensitive natural communities that may be encountered during construction activities. The training shall include: information on special-status species’ life history and legal protections; the definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA); the measures the District and/or its contractors have committed to implementing to protect special-status species and sensitive natural communities; reporting requirements and communication protocols; specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid “take” of special-status species; and penalties for violation of FESA and/or CESA. Training shall be documented as follows: 1. An acknowledgement form shall be signed by each worker indicating that environmental training has been completed. 2. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the workers have completed the environmental training. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training and are wearing hard hats with the required sticker. 3. A copy of the training transcript/training video and/or DVD, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms, shall be submitted to the District. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-9 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: General Avoidance and Protection Measures Applies to the entire Project area including water purification facilities and recharge wells. The District shall ensure that the following general measures are implemented by the contractor(s) during construction to avoid or minimize impacts on biological resources: • Within natural habitat, the construction contractor(s) shall minimize the extent of the construction disturbance as much as feasible by defining the project boundary with stakes, rope or equivalent and working within that area at all times. • Staging areas shall be located at least 50 feet from riparian habitat, creeks, and wetlands. • If vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed at least 50 feet from riparian habitat, creeks, and wetlands. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Pond Turtle and Santa Cruz Black Salamander. Applies to all conveyance pipelines within 100 feet of streams (pond turtle) and within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between 7th Avenue and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center (pond turtle and black salamander). Preconstruction surveys for western pond turtle (WPT) and Santa Cruz black salamander (SCBS) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal, development of bore pits, equipment staging or other off pavement construction-related activity, as specified below: 1. Prior to conducting the surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for WPT and SCBS and identify nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities and any relocations. The animal shall be relocated to a similar type of habitat or better from where it was relocated. 2. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 5 days prior to, and again immediately prior to, vegetation removal or grading to identify any WPT and SCBS. 3. If WPT or SCBS are observed within the construction area, a qualified biologist shall relocate the individual according to the relocation plan above. 4. The qualified biologist shall monitor vegetation removal and grading in the vicinity of Schwann Lagoon, between 7th Ave and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center to identify and relocate pond turtle and black salamander as necessary. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g: Avoidance and Protection Measures for Ohlone Tiger Beetle. Applies to coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between 7th Avenue and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center. A habitat survey for Ohlone tiger beetle (OTB) shall be conducted within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment by a qualified entomologist to determine if suitable OTB habitat is present. The survey should be conducted prior to the start of construction-related activity, including clearing and grubbing, materials staging, and installation of fencing near coastal terrace prairie habitat. The exact timing shall be decided in consultation with the entomologist to allow enough time for completion of presence/absence surveys, if necessary, prior to the start of construction. If the entomologist determines that there is no suitable OTB habitat within 100 feet of the study area, no further action is required. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-10 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) If suitable OTB habitat is present, the qualified entomologist shall conduct a presence/absence survey to determine if OTB is present within 100 feet of the Project area. If OTB is not present, no further action is required. If OTB is present within 100 feet of the Project area, the entomologist will identify the configuration of occupied habitat and shall mark areas occupied by OTB with pin flags, rope, or another equivalent method. Project construction activities shall avoid areas occupied by OTB. If occupied habitat cannot be avoided, the entomologist shall be consulted to determine whether relocation of OTB is feasible and to identify a relocation site. If relocation is not feasible, the District shall compensate for permanent impacts to OTB by restoring habitat per Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1h: Avoidance and Protection of Overwintering Monarch Butterfly Colonies Applies to Soquel Creek riparian corridor directly adjacent to the conveyance pipeline alignment on Wharf Road, between Pacific Coast Manor on the southern end and Soquel Wharf Road on the northern end; the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the pipeline alignment at Kennedy Road and Park Avenue; and the eucalyptus grove adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive near Stream Crossing 17. Construction activities in and around documented butterfly overwintering sites shall occur outside of the overwintering season (November 1 to March 31), to the greatest extent feasible, to avoid potential impacts on overwintering monarch butterflies. However, when it is not feasible to avoid the overwintering season and construction activities take place during this time, the following measures shall apply: • Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for overwintering monarch butterfly sites within 100 feet of the construction areas. • Surveys for overwintering aggregations of monarch butterflies shall be conducted over the winter season (November to first week of March) prior to construction activities. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: one in late November and the other during the week of January 1. Surveys shall follow survey methods specified by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces, 2004). • If an active overwintering site is located, work activities shall be delayed within 100 feet of the site location until avoidance measures have been implemented. Appropriate avoidance measures shall include the following measures (which may be modified as a result of coordination with the CDFW to provide equally effective measures): − − − NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities would not affect an active overwintering site, activities may proceed without restriction. A minimum 100-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the overwintering site to avoid disturbance or destruction until after the overwintering period has ended. If site conditions warrant a smaller buffer, the extent of the no-disturbance buffer may be decreased by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. Throughout the year, the District shall avoid removing or trimming trees utilized by monarch butterflies or trees adjacent to the winter roost to prevent indirect changes to the humidity, wind exposure, and temperature within the immediate vicinity of the roost site. Any routine tree trimming shall be done between April and August to eliminate the risk of disturbance to monarch colonies, and shall be conducted under the guidance of a qualified monarch butterfly specialist if butterflies have been documented in the Project area. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-11 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) Mitigation Measure 4-4.1i: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special-Status Plants. Applies to the conveyance pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between the Simpkins Family Swim center parking lot and Stream Crossing-15. Botanical surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG, 2009). Surveys shall maximize the likelihood of locating special-status species, be floristic in nature, include areas of potential indirect impacts, be conducted in the field at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable, and be replicated and spaced throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist on the site. Special care shall be taken to survey the area north of Schwan Lagoon and immediately south of the Southern Pacific Rail Road alignment where Santa Cruz tarplant populations were observed between 1986 and 2007 (CDFW, 2018). If no special-status plants are identified, no further action is required to avoid or minimize impacts to these species. If special-status plants are encountered in the work area, they should be avoided. If they cannot be avoided, the District shall, in coordination with the USFWS and/or CDFW (as applicable based on plant rarity), avoid plants through Project design, protect plants from construction activities through the use of exclusion fencing and signage, or relocate plants to other suitable habitat nearby. Prior to construction, staging areas shall be identified that avoid impacts to Santa Cruz tarplants and any other special-status plants identified, and construction exclusion fencing shall be used to define the work area and minimize disturbance to these areas. The fencing shall be maintained through the construction phase and monitored on a weekly basis during construction to ensure protection of tarplants and their habitat. If avoidance is not feasible, rare plants and their seeds shall be salvaged and relocated, and habitat restoration shall be provided to replace any destroyed special-status plant occurrences at a minimum 1:1 ratio (i.e., no net loss) or as specified by resource agencies based on area of lost habitat. Compensation for loss of special-status plant populations shall include the restoration or enhancement of temporarily impacted areas, and management of restored areas. Restoration or reintroduction shall be located on-site (i.e., at Schwan Lagoon). At a minimum, the restoration areas shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year: a. The compensation area shall be at least the same size as the impact area. b. Vegetation cover and composition in special-status plant restoration areas near Schwan Lagoon shall emulate existing Santa Cruz tarplant reference populations. c. Monitoring shall demonstrate the continued presence of rare plants in the restoration area. d. Invasive species cover shall be less than or equal to the invasive species cover in the impact area. Additionally, restored populations shall have greater than the number of individuals of the impacted population, in an area greater than or equal to the size of the impacted population, for at least 3 consecutive years without irrigation, weeding, or other manipulation of the restoration site. The Habitat Monitoring Plan to be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan) shall detail the monitoring requirements and success criteria. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-12 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) Mitigation Measure 4.4-1j: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine. Applies to the pipeline alignment between Soquel Avenue and 7th Avenue; the pipeline alignment between the Simpkins Family Swim Center parking lot and 7th Avenue; the pipeline alignment along Wharf Road between Grace Street and Soquel Wharf Road; the pipeline alignment along Kennedy Drive; and the Willowbrook Recharge Well site. A qualified botanist or arborist shall conduct surveys for native stands of Monterey pine prior to completion of final Project design documents. Individual Monterey pine trees existing within the construction work area shall be evaluated to determine if they are native occurrences, relics, or otherwise naturally-occurring remnants of the past historic range. Maps depicting the results of these surveys shall be prepared for consideration during final facility design. Native stands of Monterey pine could occur at the identified facility sites and pipeline alignments based on the historical extent of native Monterey pines and biological reconnaissance surveys. Project construction activities shall be planned to avoid impacts on native stands of Monterey pine. Any native stands of Monterey pines located within the anticipated construction disturbance area shall be fenced or flagged for avoidance prior to construction, and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with off-limits areas. If removal of native stands of Monterey pine cannot be avoided, trees of a minimum dbh of 8 inches shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio for trees removed or directly impacted by construction activities. Only local Monterey pine genetic stock shall be used for replanting at the Project site. Replacement plantings shall be planted contiguous with other individuals of the same species in areas that are determined to have suitable site conditions. Protective fencing shall be installed around the seedlings to protect against disturbance. Replacement trees shall be maintained and monitored for a period of five years and have a minimum of 70 percent survival in the fifth monitoring year to ensure success. The Habitat Monitoring Plan to be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan) shall detail the monitoring requirements and success criteria. This mitigation measures applies to native stands of Monterey pines. Independent of whether Monterey pines in the Project area are considered native stands, individual trees may be subject to local tree ordinances; see Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 (Compliance with Local Tree Policies and Ordinances). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1k: Control Measures for Spread of Invasive Plants. Applies to coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon along the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, from the Simpkins Family Swim Center parking lot to Stream Crossing-15. Construction best management practices shall be implemented in construction areas within or adjacent to lands with native plant communities that may be susceptible to non-native plant species invasion to prevent the spread of invasive plants, seed, propagules, and pathogens through the following actions: 1) Avoid driving in or operating equipment in weed-infested areas outside of fenced work areas and restrict travel to established roads and rights of way. 2) Avoid leaving exposed soil or construction materials in areas with the potential for invasive plants (e.g., in staging areas). Non-active stockpiles shall be covered with plastic or a comparable material. 3) Clean tools, equipment, and vehicles before transporting materials and before entering and leaving worksites (e.g., wheel washing stations at Project site access points). Inspect vehicles and equipment for weed seeds and/or propagules stuck in tire treads or mud on the vehicle to minimize the risk of carrying them to unaffected areas. Designate areas within active construction sites for cleaning and inspections. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-13 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) 4) Only certified, weed-free, plastic-free imported erosion control materials (or rice straw in upland areas) shall be used for the project. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Applies to any riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitat temporarily impacted by construction activities. If temporary disturbance to riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitat within the Project area cannot be avoided, and will be temporarily impacted by construction activities, the District shall develop and submit a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) to the appropriate resource agencies (CCC, CDFW, CCRWQCB, USACE, USFWS, and local agencies that require a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan) for approval prior to Project construction. The MMP shall be a comprehensive document that describes all of restoration requirements, including the required performance standards, identified in Mitigation Measures 4-4.1i (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special Status Plants), 4.4-1j (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine), 4.4-2a (Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat), and 4.4-2b (Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie). The MMP shall be implemented at all riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitats temporarily impacted by construction activities. The MMP shall outline measures to restore, improve, or re-establish riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitats on the site, and shall include the following elements: 1. Name and contact information for the property owner of the land on which the mitigation will take place. 2. Identification of the water source for supplemental irrigation, if needed. 3. Identification of depth to groundwater. 4. Topsoil salvage and storage methods for areas that support special-status plants. 5. Site preparation guidelines to prepare for planting, including coarse and fine grading. 6. Plant material procurement, including assessment of risk of introduction of plant pathogens through use of nursery-grown container stock vs. collection and propagation of site-specific plant materials, or use of seeds. 7. Planting plan outlining species selection, planting locations and spacing, for each vegetation type to be restored. 8. Planting methods, including containers, hydroseed or hydromulch, weed barriers and cages, as needed. 9. Soil amendment recommendations, if needed. 10. Irrigation plan, with proposed rates (in gallons per minute), schedule (i.e. recurrence interval), and seasonal guidelines for watering 11. Site protection plan to prevent unauthorized access, accidental damage and vandalism 12. Weeding and other vegetation maintenance tasks and schedule, with specific thresholds for acceptance of invasive species 13. Performance standards by which successful completion of mitigation can be assessed in comparison to a relevant baseline or reference site, and by which remedial actions will be triggered; 14. Success criteria shall include the minimum performance standards described in Mitigation Measures 4-4.1i (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special Status Plants), 4.4-1j (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine), 4.4-2a (Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat), and 4.4-2b (Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie) (see Table 4.4-5). 15. Monitoring methods and schedule. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-14 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) 16. Reporting requirements and schedule. Impact 4.4-1 (cont.) 17. Adaptive management and corrective actions, such as re-seeding, changes to the irrigation regime, and increased effort to control non-natives, to achieve the established success criteria. 18. Educational outreach program to inform operations and maintenance departments of local land management and utility agencies of the mitigation purpose of restored areas to prevent accidental damages. Impact 4.4-2: Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LSM Measure 4.4-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat. Applies to all stream crossings, Riparian Corridor-1, and riparian habitat within Willowbrook Park. If work is proposed adjacent to riparian habitat, riparian areas shall be clearly delineated with flagging by a qualified biologist. Riparian areas shall be separated and protected from the work area through silt fencing, amphibian-friendly fiber rolls, or other appropriate erosion control material. Bore pit locations, material staging, and all other Project-related activity shall be located as far possible from riparian areas. If riparian areas cannot be avoided, any temporarily impacted areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions or better at the end of construction. Compensation for permanent impacts shall be provided at a 2:1 ratio, or at a ratio defined by the relevant regulatory agencies (e.g., CDFW and the USACE). Compensation for loss of riparian areas may be in the form of on-site or offsite creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat. At a minimum the restoration or compensation sites shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year following restoration: a. Temporarily impacted areas are returned to pre-project conditions or greater b. Native vegetation cover shall be at least 70 percent of baseline/impact area native vegetation cover c. No more cover by invasives than the baseline/impact area Restoration and mitigation activities shall be described in the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). Measure 4.4-2b: Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie. Applies to coastal terrace prairie between 7th Ave and 17th Ave, north of Schwan Lagoon. A qualified botanist shall conduct a survey to define the presence and extent of coastal terrace prairie habitat in the area north of Schwan Lagoon within 100 feet of the proposed conveyance pipeline alignment. If coastal terrace prairie is identified, the qualified botanist shall clearly delineate the northern edge of the habitat so that it can be avoided during Project construction. If coastal terrace prairie can be fully avoided, no further action is required to avoid or mitigate losses to this habitat type; however, Mitigation Measure 4.4-1k (Control Measures for Spread of Invasive Plants) would still apply to reduce the potential for weed introduction into off-site habitat. If identified, coastal terrace prairie habitat shall be separated and protected from the work area through the placement of construction fencing (e.g., orange fencing). Excavation, vehicular traffic, material staging, and all other Project-related activity shall be located outside of coastal terrace prairie habitat to the extent possible. If coastal terrace prairie cannot be avoided, any temporarily-impacted areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions or better at the end of construction. Compensation for permanent impacts shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1 (i.e., no net loss) or as specified by resource agencies. Compensation may be in the form of permanent on-site or off-site creation, restoration, enhancement of habitat. At a minimum the restoration or compensation sites shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year following restoration: NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-15 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact 4.4-2 (cont.) a. Temporarily impacted areas are returned to pre-Project conditions or better. b. Native vegetation cover shall be at least 70 percent of baseline/impact area native vegetation cover. c. No more cover by invasive plants than the baseline/impact area Restoration and mitigation activities shall be described in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). Impact 4.4-3: Project construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. NI No mitigation required. Impact 4.4-4: Project construction would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.4-5: Project construction could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. LSM Measure 4.4-5: Comply with Local Tree Ordinances The District shall comply with all applicable local tree protection ordinances, including by obtaining any necessary tree trimming or removal permits, replanting trees in accordance with the required tree replacement ratios, and monitoring and maintaining the replacement plantings in according with applicable requirements. For tree removal requiring a tree removal permit, the following re-planting policies shall be followed: The City of Capitola requires tree replacement at a ratio of at least 2:1 on the subject property, or if all other locations on site are found infeasible, payment of in-lieu fees to compensate for the planting and maintenance of trees by the City. Planting of replacement follows the procedures outlined in City of Capitola Municipal Code 12.12.190 (Tree replacement). Replacement trees and/or in-lieu fees are not required if post-removal tree canopy coverage on the site or parcel will be 30 percent or more. Tree removal within the City of Santa Cruz requires tree mitigation in the form of replanting or payment of an in-lieu fee per tree. Replanting requires three 15-gallon or one 24-inch size specimen or payment of the current value, which is determined by the City. For trees removed within the jurisdiction of County of Santa Cruz, the County requires planting a tree of suitable species in the immediate vicinity of the removed tree or at a location deemed more suitable as determined by the Department of Public Works. Trees under 12 inches in diameter, measured one foot from the base, shall be replaced with trees of one-gallon size. Those over 12 inches in diameter shall be replaced with five-gallon trees. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-16 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Biological Resources, 4.4 (cont.) Impact CU-BIO: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to biological resources. LS No mitigation required. Cultural Resources, 4.5 Impact 4.5-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LSM Impact 4.5-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including those determined to be a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5 or a unique archaeological resource defined in PRC 21083.2. LSM Measure 4.13-3: Vibration Monitoring for Pipeline Installation in the Vicinity of Historic Buildings (applies to buildings listed in Table 4.13-9). Refer to Impact 4.13-4 in Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration, for details. Measure 4.5-2a: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan. This mitigation measure only applies to pipeline alignments in the vicinity of known archaeological sites (CA-SCR-12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR-269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CA-SCR-293; and P-44-000302). Prior to the 30% design plans for the Project, the District shall: 1. Relocate Project components to a location that would not potentially affect historical resources. 2. Or if relocation is infeasible and historical resources would potentially be affected, design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to determine whether site constituents of the known historical resources extend into the Project area. The investigation would be completed under the methods and research design outlined in an ARDTP. A qualified archaeologist (defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology) shall prepare the ARDTP in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe(s) of the Project area. The ARDTP shall addresses, at a minimum, the following: the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; treatment and recovery of important scientific data contained within the portions of the historical resources located within and adjacent to the Project area; construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training; archaeological and Native American monitoring; inadvertent discovery protocols; and provisions for curation of recovered materials. The ARDTP shall address the methods for subsurface investigation at each of the nine historical resources that could be affected by components of the selected Project (CA-SCR-12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR-269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CASCR-293; and P-44-000302) to determine whether the site constituents within the Project area contribute to each of the sites’ overall eligibility. The subsurface investigation shall address whether the portions of the sites within the Project area contain important scientific data (Criterion 4) or other archaeological materials of traditional/cultural value to Native American tribes (Criteria 1, 2, and 3). The ARDTP shall include the specific methods that will be employed at each site location (i.e., the length and depth of excavation, the type of equipment utilized, the percent of area investigated at each site location). The investigation may include trenching or coring in the Project area adjacent to the known site components. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed plan would preserve any significant historical information obtained and identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the resources, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The results of NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-17 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources, 4.5 Impact 4.5-2 (cont.) the investigation shall be documented in a technical report that provides a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, results of any special studies conducted, and interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context. All technical documents shall be placed on file at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. The results report shall include recommendations for archaeological and Native American monitoring in Environmentally Sensitive Areas of the proposed Project to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work described here. Measure 4.5-2b: Cultural Resources Study of the Chanticleer Site. If the Chanticleer Site is chosen as the location for the AWPF and pump station, the District shall conduct an archaeological resources investigation for the Chanticleer Site Project area that includes, at a minimum: • An updated records search at the NWIC; • An intensive archaeological resources survey of the Chanticleer Site Project area; • A memorandum disseminating the results of this research; and, • If a potential archaeological resource is identified, develop and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan per Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a. Measure 4.5-2c: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered by construction personnel during Project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammer stones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If a find is evaluated and determined to be significant, a mitigation plan shall be developed that recommends preservation in place as a preference or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. The mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe(s), as appropriate. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding the resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover scientifically consequential information from the resource prior to any excavation at the site. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context; reporting of results within a timely manner; curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility; and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-18 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Cultural Resources, 4.5 (cont.) Impact 4.5-3: The Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Impact CU-CUL: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains. LSM Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event human remains are uncovered during construction activities for the Project, the District shall immediately halt work, contact the Santa Cruz County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 48 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendent will make recommendations for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. LS No mitigation required. Energy Conservation, 4.6 Impact 4.6-1: The Project could use large amounts of fuel or energy in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner. LSM Measure 4.6-1: Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan. The District shall contract a qualified professional (i.e., construction planner/energy efficiency expert) to prepare a Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan that identifies the specific measures that the District (and its construction contractors) will implement as part of Project construction and decommissioning to increase the efficient use of construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Such measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: procedures to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained at all times; a commitment to utilize existing electricity sources where feasible rather than portable diesel-powered generators; and identification of procedures (including the routing of haul trips identified in implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1) that will be followed to ensure that all materials and debris hauling is conducted in a fuel-efficient manner. The plan shall be implemented throughout the construction and decommissioning periods. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions. (See Impact 4.3-1 in Section 4.3, Air Quality, for description.) NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-19 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Energy Conservation, 4.6 (cont.) Impact 4.6-2: The Project would not constrain local or regional energy supplies, require additional capacity, affect peak and base periods of electrical demand, or otherwise require or result in the construction of new electrical generation and/or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-ENE: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to energy conservation. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.7-1: The Project would not expose people or structures to substantial seismic shaking or seismically-induced ground failure, including liquefaction or lateral spreading. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.7-2: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.7-3: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soil such that substantial risks could occur. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-GEO: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to geology and paleontology. LS No mitigation required. Geology and Paleontology, 4.7 NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-20 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.8 Impact 4.8-1: The Project would not generate an amount of GHG emissions that would contribute substantially to climate change. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.8-2: The Project would not conflict with the Executive Order B-30-15 Emissions Reduction Goal. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-GHG: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.9-1: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.9-2: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.9-3: The Project would be located on or adjacent to a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. LSM Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9 NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Mitigation Measure 4.9-3a: Health and Safety Plan. The District or its construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation and grading activities. This HASP shall be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to commencement of demolition and construction activities. The HASP shall include, but is not limited to, the following elements: • Designation of a trained, experienced site safety and health supervisor who has the responsibility and authority to develop and implement the site HASP; • A summary of all potential risks to demolition and construction workers and maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals; LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-21 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 4.9 (cont.) Impact 4.9-3 (cont.) • Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed; • Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital; and • Procedures to be followed in the event that evidence of potential soil or groundwater contamination (such as soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers) is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release, and notifying Santa Cruz County EHS. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3b: Soil Management Plan. In support of the HASP described above in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the contractor shall develop and implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that describes the procedures for managing excavated soil. The SMP shall include procedures for monitoring soil for possible contamination, identifying the specific stockpiling locations and measures to contain the stockpiled soil to prevent run on and run off, and materials disposal specifying how the construction contractor(s) will remove, handle, transport, and dispose of all excavated materials in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The SMP shall specify the contractor will segregate and dispose of soil with chemical concentrations above US EPA RSLs and RWQCB ESLs screening levels. Soil with chemical concentrations below screening levels may be reused or recycled. Soil with chemical concentrations above screening levels shall be disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 66261 (i.e., Class III (non-hazardous waste), Class II (nonhazardous and “designated” waste), or Class I (non-hazardous and hazardous waste)). The SMP must identify protocols for soil testing and disposal, identify the approved disposal sites, and include written documentation that the disposal site can accept the waste. Contract specifications shall mandate full compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the identification, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, including those encountered in excavated soil. This SMP shall be submitted to the District and the Santa Cruz County EHS for review and approval prior to commencement of construction. Impact 4.9-4: The Project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Impact CU-HAZ: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction). Refer to Impact 4.15-1 in Section 4.15, Transportation, for details. LS No mitigation required. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-22 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, 4.10 Impact 4.10-1: Borehole drilling, construction and development of the recharge wells and monitoring wells would not permanently draw local groundwater levels down to the extent that the operation of nearby District and non-District production wells are adversely affected, nor would water generated during well construction degrade ambient groundwater quality or violate groundwater quality standards. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.10-2: Managed active aquifer recharge of purified water would not cause unfavorable groundwater conditions in the Basin such that nearby District and nonDistrict wells are damaged, experience substantial loss of yield, or can no longer be operated. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.10-3: Introducing advanced purified wastewater into the existing groundwater supply of the Purisima aquifer units would not degrade aquifer water quality or violate water quality standards. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.10-4: Soil leaching of metals and other constituents from the aquifer materials, which could occur as a result of injecting purified water, would not degrade groundwater quality. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.10-5: Elevated local groundwater levels caused by the Project would not degrade groundwater quality by inducing flows that intersect groundwater contaminant plumes or existing shallow soil contamination. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.10-6: Groundwater replenishment would not cause increased flooding and hydromodification in local streams. LS No mitigation required. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-23 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, 4.10 (cont.) Impact CU-HYD-GW: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to groundwater resources. B No mitigation required. Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, 4.11 Impact 4.11-1: Project construction could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impact 4.11-2: Project operation would not violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: HDD Pipeline Leak Contingency Measures for Surface Water Crossings. The District shall implement the measures defined below to minimize and/or avoid water quality impacts associated with HDD pipeline installation. The measures shall be implemented at all areas where HDD installation under a waterway would occur to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for Project impacts to water quality and/or biological resources. Once final pipeline alignments are identified for the Project and the Project design is finalized, the District and/or its contractor shall further develop and implement the following minimization and avoidance measures as appropriate based on site-specific constraints and scale of work (e.g., the final siting and sizing of a containment area). The measures shall include, at a minimum: LS • Training of construction personnel about a) staff coordination and contact list of key Project proponents, biological monitor, and agency staff in the event of an accidental release during HDD pipeline installation b) monitoring procedures, equipment, materials and procedures in place for the prevention, containment, clean-up (such as creating a containment area and using a pump, using a vacuum truck, etc.); and, c) disposal of released drilling fluids, and agency notification protocols. • Methods for preventing accidental release during HDD pipeline installation including: a) maintaining pressure in the borehole to avoid exceeding the strength of the overlying soil; b) maintaining the minimum drilling pressure necessary to maintain fluid circulation; and, c) continuous monitoring of slurry circulation volumes at the exit and entry pits to determine if slurry circulation has been lost. • In the event an accidental release during HDD pipeline installation occurs, the on-site monitor, in coordination with the contractor, shall: a) verify that a release has occurred and identify the location of the release; b) immediately stop all drilling operations; c) deploy clean-up measures to contain drilling fluids released into surface waters; d) contact the appropriate District representative to notify of drilling fluid release occurrence (District would have responsibility to notify permit agency); e) contact the Project biological monitor to identify and relocate species potentially in the area; and, f) implement and monitor clean-up operations to contain, clean-up, and dispose of the released drilling fluids. No mitigation required. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-24 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, 4.11 (cont.) Impact 4.11-3: Project facilities would not alter drainage patterns such that there is a resultant increase in erosion, siltation, flooding or the rate or amount of surface runoff such that the capacity of an existing or planned stormwater drainage system is exceeded. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.11-4: Project facilities would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area and impede or redirect flood flows or could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee, or coastal flooding due to tsunami or sea-level rise. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-HYD: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hydrology resources and surface water quality. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.12-1: The Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-LU: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to land use and recreation. LS No mitigation required. Land Use and Recreation, 4.12 NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-25 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Noise, 4.13 Impact 4.13-1: Construction of the Project would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances. SUM Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a: Construction Noise Reduction Plan. The District shall implement for the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site (for the first 2.5 months of construction); the Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites; and pipeline alignment, as applicable, a Construction Noise Reduction Plan prior to initiating construction. A disturbance coordinator shall be designated for the Project to implement the provisions of the plan. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall implement the following measures: • Distribute to the potentially affected residences and other sensitive receptors within 200 feet of the Project construction site boundaries a “hotline” telephone number, which shall be attended during active construction working hours, for use by the public to register complaints. The distribution shall identify a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints and institute actions warranted to correct the problem. All complaints shall be logged noting date, time, complainant’s name, nature of complaint, and any corrective action taken. The distribution shall also include the construction schedule. • All construction equipment shall have intake and exhaust mufflers recommended by the manufacturers thereof, to meet relevant noise limitations. • Maintain maximum physical separation, as far as practicable, between noise sources (construction equipment) and sensitive noise receptors. Separation may be achieved by locating stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers) used during construction activities shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. • Use construction noise barriers such as paneled noise shields, blankets, and/or enclosures adjacent to noisy stationary and off-road equipment. Noise control shields, blankets and/or enclosures shall be made featuring a solid panel and a weather-protected, soundabsorptive material on the construction-activity side of the noise shield. Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b: Off-site Accommodations for Substantially Affected Nighttime Receptors. The District shall provide temporary hotel accommodations for all residences within 200 feet of the Willowbrook Lane and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites during Project-related well drilling. The accommodations shall be provided for the duration of nighttime drilling activities. The District shall provide accommodations reasonably similar to those of the impacted residents in terms of number of beds and amenities. Impact 4.13-2: Project construction would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR SUM Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-26 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Noise, 4.13 (cont.) Impact 4.13-3: Operation of the Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. LS Impact 4.13-4: Project construction could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration. LSM No mitigation required. Mitigation Measure 4.13-4: Vibration Monitoring for Pipeline Installation in the Vicinity of Historic Buildings. The District shall construct the pipeline as close as possible to the centerlines of the road right-of-way to reduce indirect impacts from construction vibration to below the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold. If the District determines that pipelines cannot be located near the centerline of the street due to traffic concerns or existing utilities, the historical resources identified in Table 4.13-9, shall be monitored for vibration during pipeline construction, especially during the use of vibratory rollers. If construction vibration levels exceed 0.20 in/sec PPV (which is below the historic building damage threshold of 0.4 in/sec PPV), construction shall be halted and other feasible construction methods shall be employed to reduce the vibration levels below the damage threshold. Alternative construction methods may include using concrete saws instead of jackhammers or hoe-rams to open excavation trenches, the use of non-vibratory rollers, and hand excavation, or other equally effective means. Impact 4.13-5: The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-NOI: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to noise and vibration. SU None feasible. Impact 4.14-1: The Project would not induce substantial population growth directly during Project construction or operation. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-POP: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to population and housing. LS No mitigation required. Population and Housing, 4.14 NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-27 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Transportation, 4.15 Impact 4.15-1: Closure of travel lanes during pipeline construction could temporarily reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic delays on area roadways, causing temporary and intermittent conflicts with all modes of travel. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction) Prior to commencement of Project construction, the District and/or contractor(s) shall arrange for Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) to be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. The TCPs shall comply with requirements in agreements executed between the District and the public works departments of the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and Santa Cruz County (which have jurisdiction over the public roads in the area), and will include, but not be limited to, the following elements: • Circulation and detour routes shall be developed to minimize impacts on local street circulation during lane and road closures. For example, lane closures shall generally avoid the AM and PM peak commute hours. Flaggers and/or signage shall be used to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone. Roadside construction safety protocols shall be implemented. • Truck routes designated by affected jurisdictions shall be identified. Haul routes that both minimize truck traffic on local roadways and residential streets, and maximize fuel efficiency per Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 (Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan), shall be utilized. • Sufficient staging areas shall be developed for trucks accessing construction zones to minimize disruption of access to adjacent land uses, particularly at entries to on-site pipeline construction within residential neighborhoods. • Construction vehicle movement shall be controlled and monitored through the enforcement of standard construction specifications by on-site inspectors. • If deemed necessary by the affected jurisdictions, truck trips shall be scheduled to minimize trips during the peak morning and evening commute hours. • Roads shall be restored to the pre‐Project number of lanes, with all trenches covered with steel plates or the equivalent outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress. • Construction shall be coordinated with Santa Cruz Metro Transit District to determine any temporary rerouting for bus lines in work zones that may be needed. • Bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation shall be maintained during Project construction where safe to do so. The contractor shall be required to maintain bicycle lanes/lane widths to accommodate bicycle traffic or seek a permit from the appropriate jurisdiction to address bicycle route detours and signage for any lane closures. Where construction activities encroach on a bicycle lane, advance warning signs (e.g., “Bicyclists Allowed Use of Full Lane” and/or “Share the Road”) shall be posted to indicate that bicycles and vehicles are sharing the lane and to warn bicyclists and drivers of upcoming traffic hazards. If construction activities encroach on a sidewalk, safe crossings and appropriate signage shall be provided for pedestrians. • All equipment and materials shall be stored in designated contractor staging areas on or adjacent to the worksite, such that traffic obstruction is minimized. • Construction shall be coordinated with facility owners or administrators of police and fire stations (including all fire protection agencies), hospitals, and schools. Facility owners or operators shall be notified in advance of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of detours and lane closures. Emergency service vehicles shall be given priority for access. • A public information plan shall be developed to provide adjacent residents and businesses with regularly updated information regarding Project construction in their area, including construction activities, durations, peak construction vehicle activities (e.g., excavation), bus stop relocations, travel lane closures, and other lane closures. This information shall also be presented on the District website and shall be updated regularly as construction conditions change. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-28 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Transportation, 4.15 (cont.) • Impact 4.15-1 (cont.) Portable changeable message signs shall be used to provide advance notice of lane closures. Impact 4.15-2: Project construction could cause temporary increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not cause substantial conflicts with the performance of the circulation system. LS Impact 4.15-3: Pipeline construction could cause temporary and intermittent impedance to access to adjacent roadways and land uses. LSM Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 Impact 4.15-4: Pipeline construction would not substantially impair access to alternative transportation facilities (public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities), although it could temporarily decrease the performance of such facilities. LSM Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 Impact 4.15-5: Project operations and maintenance activities would cause increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not substantially alter transportation conditions, and would not cause conflicts with alternative travel modes, including vehicles, emergency vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. LS Impact CU-TRA: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation and traffic. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM No mitigation required. No mitigation required. Mitigation Measure CU-TRA-1: Construction Traffic Coordination Plan. The District shall coordinate with the appropriate planning agency within each affected jurisdiction to develop and implement a Construction Traffic Coordination Plan. The purpose of the plan shall be to lessen the cumulative effects of the Project and local development Project construction-related traffic delays and congestion. The plan shall address construction-related traffic associated with all Project sites in the vicinity of project components (i.e., within one mile or would use the same roads) and whose construction schedules overlap that of the Project. However, the construction traffic coordination plan shall, at a minimum, include the following components: • Identification of all projects in the vicinity of Project components (within one mile or would use the same roads) and whose construction schedules overlap that of the Project. • Consideration for the types of construction-related vehicles and corresponding numbers and timing of trips associated with each said project. LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-29 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Transportation, 4.15 (cont.) Impact CU-TRA (cont.) • An evaluation of roadways affected by construction activities and measures to minimize roadway and traffic disturbances (e.g., lane closures and detours). • Phasing of construction activities, as necessary to prevent degradation of levels of service on affected roadways. • A program that provides for continual coordination with the affected agencies to allow for adjustments and refinements to the plan once construction is underway. The construction traffic plan may be modeled after or included within the plan described in Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction). If necessary, separate construction traffic coordination plans (i.e., one for each affected jurisdiction) may be prepared, provided each is compatible. Tribal Cultural Resources, 4.16 Impact 4.16-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. LSM Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b: Cultural Resources Study of the Chanticleer Site Mitigation Measure 4.5-2c: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.17-1: The Project would not exceed water treatment requirements or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that there is insufficient capacity to serve the Project. LS No mitigation required. Impact 4.17-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-TRI: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to tribal cultural resources. Utilities, 4.17 NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-30 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES Impact Significance Determination Mitigation Measure Utilities, 4.17 (cont.) Impact 4.17-3: Disposal of Project-related construction waste would not result in adverse effects on landfill capacity and conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations. LS No mitigation required. Impact CU-UTL: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to utilities including water, wastewater, and solid waste. LS No mitigation required. NOTES: B = Beneficial LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation 1-31 NI = No Impact ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Significance Determination Impact Cumulative impacts related to aesthetic resources LS Cumulative impacts related to air quality LS Cumulative impacts related to biological resources LS Cumulative impacts related to cultural resources LS Cumulative impacts related to energy LS Cumulative impacts related to geology and paleontology LS Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions LS Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials LS Cumulative impacts related to hydrology - surface water LS Cumulative impacts related to hydrology – groundwater LS Cumulative impacts related to land use and recreation LS Cumulative impacts related to noise and vibration SUa Cumulative impacts related to population and housing LS Cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic LSM Cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources LS Cumulative impacts related to utilities LS NOTES: LS = Less-than-significant cumulative impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less-than-significant cumulative impact, with mitigation incorporated SU = Significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for which no mitigation is available SUM = Significant and unavoidable impact with implementation of feasible mitigation measures a. The analysis concludes the Project could have a cumulatively significant and unavoidable noise impact during construction, and a cumulatively less-than-significant noise impact during operation. 1.5 Areas of Known Controversy and Issues to be Resolved Pursuant to Section 15123(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR shall identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public and the issues to be resolved. The following areas of controversy and issues to be resolved were raised through the scoping and public meetings conducted in association with circulation of the NOP: • Project Location and Community Character Comments were received that requested additional information regarding the potential effects of a purification facility in or near a residential neighborhood setting, including potential impacts related to: hazardous materials; water, noise, light, and air pollution; ground vibration; soil and geology; increased traffic; land use compatibility; and neighborhood aesthetics, among others. Chapter 3, Project Description, provides a detailed description of the Project components under consideration, the construction process, operational Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary requirements, and schedule. For example, the Project description includes a list of chemicals that could be required for Project operation, along with their purpose and volumes. Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, provides a project-level analysis of potential effects on the environment for each of the Project components identified in the Project description. Chapter 4 is organized by environmental topic, and addresses each of the items identified above. For example, Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, addressed the storage, handling, and use of hazardous materials, and measures designed to prevent and respond to an accidental release. Similarly, Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation, explains that public utility facilities (e.g., water purification facilities and associated infrastructure) are allowable uses under the zoning regulations pertinent to the project sites under consideration. • Water Quality and Public Health Comments were received that requested additional information about whether purification technologies are capable of removing contaminants from municipal wastewater effluent, and to what extent the use of advance purified water for groundwater recharge would pose risks to water quality and public health. Chapter 3, Project Description, provides a summary of the water purification process and the types of technologies involved. Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, presents analyses of potential effects of the project on water quality. Specifically, Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, addresses the potential effects of project implementation on groundwater quality and the quality of the water as it relates to public health. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, addresses the potential effects of project implementation on surface water quality, including the effects of brine disposal on marine waters. Similarly, Section 4.4, Biological Resources, includes analyses of potential effects of brine discharge on diminutive marine organisms. • Project Timing and Alternate Supply Options Comments were received that questioned the basis for and timing of the District’s evaluation of a project involving advanced water purification for groundwater replenishment, in light of the other options identified in the Community Water Plan, including river water transfers/ purchase. As described further in Chapter 3, Project Description (Section 3.2), the groundwater basin from which the District draws 100 percent of its water is in a state of severe overdraft, which has also raised broader concerns of seawater intrusion and aquifer contamination. Recent geophysical surveys of the groundwater aquifers along the coastline of the District’s service area have detected elevated salinity levels. The survey confirms the proximity and extent of seawater intrusion, and the need for swift actions to aid in the recovery, maintenance, and protection of groundwater levels to prevent further onshore intrusion (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018). While the project that is the subject of this EIR involves advanced water purification for groundwater replenishment, it is not the only supplemental water supply option being considered by the District. Moreover, this EIR does not commit the District to undertaking any action regarding the subject Project. As discussed in Chapter 2, Introduction, the District is also undertaking a pilot project to understand the feasibility of water transfers from the City of Santa Cruz. In addition, the District has entered into a Memorandum of Interest with DeepWater Desal, LLC. to express interest in potentially purchasing desalinated water. Under CEQA, a lead agency must consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would avoid or substantially lessen the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1. Summary significant effects of the project, while attaining most of the basic project objectives. Chapter 7, Alternatives, describes the process for identification and analysis of alternatives to the Project for purposes of CEQA compliance. While important for understanding the options available that meet the CEQA alternatives criteria, the District is not necessarily limited to or bound by the options identified in Chapter 7. • Response to Comments and Final EIR Following close of the public comment period, responses to comments received during the Draft EIR comment period will be prepared and, together with any corresponding revisions to the Draft EIR, will constitute a Final EIR. The Final EIR will be considered and acted upon by the District's Board of Directors at a noticed public hearing. _________________________ 1.6 References – Summary HydroMetrics WRI. 2018. Management Implications of SkyTEM Seawater Intrusion Results Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, March 8. Water Systems Consulting (WSC), 2015. Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District. Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/sites/default/files/ documents/Reports/SqCWD-2015-UWMP_Final.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 1-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 2 Introduction and Background 2.1 Introduction The Soquel Creek Water District (District) is evaluating the Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project), an advanced purified groundwater replenishment project, to supplement natural recharge of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin) with purified water. The Project would help increase the sustainability of the District’s groundwater supply, which it currently relies upon for 100 percent of its water supply. The Project would reduce the degree of overdraft conditions in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin, protect against and aid in preventing further seawater intrusion of the groundwater basin, and promote beneficial reuse by reducing discharge of treated wastewater to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Monterey Bay). The Project facilities include: water treatment facilities; pump stations and pipelines for the conveyance of source water, purified water, and brine; and recharge and monitoring wells. The Project is designed specifically to help the District meet its obligations under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to reduce net groundwater withdrawals to levels that would facilitate achievement of sustainable groundwater levels by 2040, and in a manner consistent with its Community Water Plan goals. 2.2 Background 2.2.1 Regional Water System Overview The District is a nonprofit, local government agency that provides potable water service and groundwater resource management within its service area (see Figure 2-1). The District serves a population of about 40,400 through approximately 15,800 service connections within Santa Cruz County (Carollo, 2017). Ninety-four percent of the District’s customers are residential; the remaining six percent are primarily commercial and institutional. There are no agricultural connections to the system. Portions of the city of Capitola are served by the District; the city of Capitola is the only incorporated area within the District. Unincorporated communities include Aptos, La Selva Beach, Opal Cliffs, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, Seacliff Beach and Soquel. The District currently receives 100 percent of its water from groundwater aquifers in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin (Basin). These aquifers are located within two geologic formations that underlie the District service area. The Purisima Formation (Purisima) provides approximately 70 percent of the District’s annual production for Capitola, Soquel, Seacliff Beach, and Aptos. The Aromas Red Sands (Aromas) aquifer provides the remaining water (approximately Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Å Ä 1 Soquel Santa Cruz Aptos Capitola Å Ä Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Water_District1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 1 Rio del Mar La Selva Beach Soquel Creek Water District Water Service Boundary Water District Sub-Areas Sub-Area I Sub-Area II Sub-Area III Sub-Area IV 0 1 Miles Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 Figure 2-1 Soquel Creek Water District Water Service Area 2. Introduction and Background 30 percent) needed annually for the communities of Seascape, Rio Del Mar, and La Selva Beach (Carollo, 2017). The District’s total 2017 system water production was 3,324 acre-feet (ac-ft.) (District, 2018). The District water supply system consists of 18 production wells (15 of which are currently active), approximately 166 miles of pipeline, and 18 water storage tanks. The total estimated production capacity of the system is about 7 million gallons per day (mgd), and the total storage capacity is 7.5 million gallons. Between 2007 and 2016, the District produced an average of approximately 4,020 acre-feet per year (afy); although, in recent years, water production has been closer to 3,000 afy, largely due to successful conservation initiatives as explained further below (District, 2018). 2.2.2 Community Water Plan The Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin, from which the District draws 100 percent of its water supply, is classified by the State of California as in a condition of critical overdraft. 1 To protect endangered groundwater resources, ensure water reliability and resiliency to its customers, and prepare for climate change, the District developed the Community Water Plan in 2015. The Community Water Plan is based on community input and the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan, and has served as the District's roadmap to meeting its goal of sustainability by 2040. The plan is composed of three main areas of action – promoting water conservation, managing groundwater proactively, and seeking additional water supplies. Pure Water Soquel is one of the supplemental water supply options being evaluated by the District. The following sections describe the components of the Community Water Plan, and their overall status. Water Conservation The District launched a comprehensive program to conserve water across its service area. The District set a goal of curtailing water usage by 25 percent in 2014, compared to the 2013 baseline. The result of the District’s comprehensive program has been a substantial decrease in water usage across the service area. For example, District customer water consumption in 2016 was 29 percent less than the 2013 baseline (49 gallons per person per day for residential use) and in 2017, it was 24 percent less than the 2013 baseline (53 gallons per person per day for residential use). The District continues to operate the program to maintain that goal or better, including but not limited to the following: • Water Demand Offset Program – Water Neutral Development. Implemented in 2003, this program requires new development offset their water usage by 200 percent. • High Efficiency Toilets Rebates. The District provides rebates to incentivize upgrades with ultra-high efficiency models. • Turf Removal. Removing turf lawns and replacing them with drought-tolerant landscaping can reduce water usage. The District provides rebates to incentivize replacement. 1 Critical overdraft condition refers to a situation in which the average annual amount of groundwater extraction exceeds the long-term average annual supply of water to the groundwater basin. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background • Water-wise Surveys. District staff offer free, customized water efficiency tips, leak identification, and irrigation advice through home and business visits to existing customers. • Leak Detection System. Leaks in the distribution system are detected by an automated metering system. • Education Programs. The District offers free water conservation educational programs to schools, organizations, social groups, and families within the District’s service area. Proactive Groundwater Management As the sole source of supply for the District, groundwater must be managed in a proactive and coordinated manner. Specific District groundwater management activities and programs include but are not limited to: • Monitoring Well Network Program. Over 80 monitoring wells are sampled for water quality and water levels quarterly, semi-annually and annually depending on the location of the well. The wells are used to track seawater intrusion along the Monterey Bay coastline in Santa Cruz County. • Well Master Plan. The District is implementing a comprehensive plan to redistribute pumping away from the coast to slow down seawater intrusion, as well as to better operate groundwater wells, ensuring reliability in case of emergencies. • New Wells. The District is strategically adding new wells to their pumping systems. These wells will redistribute pumping away from the coast to decrease the rate of seawater intrusion, but not increase overall pumping out of the basin. • Groundwater Model for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. A robust computer model is being developed to help better understand the basin, groundwater elevations, and support evaluation of potential sustainability actions. • Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA). The District is partnering with the City and County of Santa Cruz, Central Water District, three private well representatives, and other community members to work on regional groundwater management in the Mid-County area. The MGA Board meets bi-monthly and an advisory group is currently developing the MGA Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which must be adopted by January 31, 2020. Additional Water Supplies Developing new water supplies as part of a diversified water supply portfolio takes many years. Water supply projects require thorough evaluation with technical studies and environmental analyses, detailed exploration of funding mechanisms, and extensive outreach and input processes to gain public understanding. The District Board identified three water supply options to evaluate in 2015 and added a fourth in 2017. The following section summarizes and provides the status for the various water supply options under consideration and evaluation. Pure Water Soquel Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project) is the advanced purified groundwater replenishment project being analyzed in this Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to supplement natural recharge of the Basin with purified water. See Chapter 3, Project Description. River Water Transfers with the City of Santa Cruz The District is coordinating with the City of Santa Cruz to explore the potential of transferring treated river water (from Santa Cruz North Coast Water Supplies and potentially the San Lorenzo River) to the District’s system in the winter (when there are excess flows), which would allow the District to reduce groundwater pumping (also known as in-lieu recharge). The District is undertaking a 5-year pilot project (2015-2020) involving the purchase of a small amount (average transfer of 352 acre-feet per year during the November to April period, as evaluated in a Negative Declaration prepared by the City of Santa Cruz) of excess water from the City of Santa Cruz (City of Santa Cruz, 2016) from North Coast sources that have Pre-1914 water rights. If the pilot project proves successful in terms of addressing potential water quality issues and meeting the Division of Drinking Water permit requirements, the District may consider (1) extending this purchase contract with the City of Santa Cruz beyond 2020 and/or (2) participating in the City’s In-Lieu and/or Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project(s) that they are pursuing. Currently the City is evaluating the feasibility of three water supply options for its drought shortage needs (In-Lieu and/or Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Recycled Water, and Desalination) with the goal of having its City Council select at the end of 2020 which of these options to initiate environmental review, design, and formal agreements with potential project partners. The In-Lieu and/or Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project(s) could include a larger amount of treated river water (1,500 afy) and may require the District to obtain water rights for the San Lorenzo River or the City to change its existing water rights. Desalination from Moss Landing This water supply option would involve the purchase of water from DeepWater Desal, LLC (DWD), a private company currently evaluating the development of a desalination facility in Moss Landing, CA. In May 2015, the District entered into a Memorandum of Interest (MOI) with DWD to express the District's interest in purchasing 1,500 afy of desalinated water. The MOI is non-binding and does not obligate the District to make a financial commitment at this time. The environmental review process for the DWD project has begun, but the completion date remains unknown. If the DWD project moves forward, the District would have the opportunity to participate. DWD is finishing up its cost estimates for the water it would produce and it is anticipated that more formal purchase agreements will be requested by DWD once that is complete. Stormwater Capture The District has identified a few locations which may be suitable for stormwater recharge, the process of recharging the groundwater basin with available stormwater. Current activities include confirming recharge site suitability with on-site testing and analysis. The District’s goal is for each stormwater recharge project to recharge approximately 10-50 afy. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background 2.3 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report The District is the lead agency responsible for CEQA environmental review of projects (sponsored) by the District. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR when a project could significantly affect the physical environment. The District determined that the Project could potentially cause significant environmental impacts, and that preparation of an EIR was therefore required for the Project to comply with CEQA. The District has prepared this EIR to provide the public, and responsible and trustee agencies reviewing this Project, with information about the potential physical effects, both beneficial and adverse, on the local and regional environment associated with implementation of the Project. This EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA (California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq.), and the CEQA Guidelines (Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq.). This EIR describes the range of options under consideration by the District for development of an advanced water purification facility and associated infrastructure for groundwater recharge, as well as the approvals that would be required for Project implementation. The document characterizes the Project setting, and discloses the range of potential environmental impacts of the Project, including the various component options under consideration, and identifies mitigation measures where those impacts would be significant. The EIR also addresses cumulative adverse impacts to which the proposed Project could make a substantial contribution. Also, as required under CEQA, it describes and evaluates potentially feasible alternatives to the Project that could avoid or reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the Project’s objectives. 2.4 Environmental Review Process 2.4.1 Notice of Preparation In accordance with Section 15082 of CEQA Guidelines, the District, as Lead Agency, prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an EIR (see Appendix A, NOP and Scoping Report). An Initial Study (IS) was prepared and a NOP was circulated from November 2016 to January 2017 to local, state, and federal agencies, and to other interested parties. In 2017, the District modified the Project, and a revised NOP was circulated from June to July 2017. 2.4.2 Public Scoping The purpose of scoping is to present the Project to interested parties and to solicit input from them on the appropriate scope, focus, and content of the Draft EIR. As noted below, the District published two NOPs and provided notice of the scoping process, including the date, times, and location of public scoping meetings, through direct mail, email, website posting, and newspaper publications, as follows: 2016 NOP • Direct mail of postcard to adjacent property owners/occupants, November 11, 2016 (6,843 mailed) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background • Direct Mail of NOP-IS, November 15, 2016 (61 mailed, including to 8 local libraries) • Direct mail of NOP, November 15, 2016 (10 mailed) • Posting of notice on District’s website, November 16, 2016 • Email – Scoping Period Press Release, November 16, 2016 (85 addressees) • Email – Scoping Period Notice, November 17, 2016 (7,099 addressees) • Email – Project Update, December 7, 2016 (7,054 addressees) • Email – Scoping Period Extension, December 21, 2016 (7,079 addressees) • Email – Project Update, January 4, 2017 (7,057 addressees) • Newspaper advertisements/legal notice: – Aptos Times, November 15, 2016 – Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 16, 2016 – Santa Cruz Sentinel, November 30, 2016 – Aptos Times, December 1, 2016 – Capitola Soquel Times, December 2016 – Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 26, 2016 The District hosted two public scoping meetings (2:00 pm to 4:00 pm and 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm) on December 7th, 2016 at Twin Lakes Church (2701 Cabrillo College Drive, Monschke Hall, Aptos, CA 95003), to present the Project, receive input on well location and Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) location development, and receive comments on the content of the EIR / scope of analysis. The District received 172 pieces of scoping correspondence in response to the NOP-IS, including 95 emails, 35 written comments submitted by mail, 18 written comments submitted at the scoping meetings, and 24 oral comments submitted at the scoping meetings (see Appendix A). The primary environmental concerns raised during the 2016 scoping period are summarized in Table 2-1 (located at the end of this chapter), which includes references to the EIR sections related to the subject comments. In response to these issues raised during the initial public scoping period, the District took actions prior to commencing further work on the EIR. The first action was to revise the Project, as described in this EIR. Key features of the Project that have been revised are summarized below: • Removal of the option to use raw wastewater from the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District collection system as source water and removal of associated pipelines and raw wastewater treatment facility. The revised Project would only use treated effluent from Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) as the source water to purify for groundwater recharge. • Addition of a Chanticleer Avenue property location as an option for development of an AWPF, and an associated purified water pipeline extending from the Chanticleer Site to recharge well sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background • Addition of the SC WWTF location as an option for development of a tertiary treatment facility or AWPF, and associated tertiary or purified water pipeline extending from SC WWTF to AWPF sites (if tertiary facility developed) or recharge well sites (if AWPF developed). • Minor changes to the potential limits of disturbance associated with the development of an AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site and the Cabrillo College Drive Recharge Well Site. The Project location and components, as revised, are described further in this EIR and supporting Project Description subsections that follow. 2017 NOP After the District made these revisions, a revised NOP was issued, and a scoping meeting was held for this revised document. The District provided notice of the revised NOP scoping process, including the date, time, and location of the public scoping meeting, through direct mail, email, website posting, and newspaper publications, as follows: • Direct mail of postcards for Revised NOP to adjacent property owners/occupants, June 20, 2017 (7,455 mailed) • Direct mail of Revised NOP, June 21, 2017 (91 mailed, including to 8 local libraries) • Direct mail of Revised NOP (26 pages), June 21, 2017 (16 mailed) • Posting of notice for Revised NOP on District’s website, June 22, 2017 • Email – Scoping Period Press Release for Revised NOP, June 22, 2017 (7,504 addressees) • Email – Scoping Meeting Notice, June 7, 2017 (7,514 addressees) • Newspaper advertisements/legal notice: – Santa Cruz Sentinel, June 22, 2017 2 – Aptos Times, July 1, 2017 – Capitola Soquel Times, July 1, 2017 – Santa Cruz Sentinel, July 5, 2017 The scoping meeting for the revised NOP was held on July 12, 2017 from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm at Twin Lakes Church, the same location as the previous scoping meetings. At this meeting, District staff presented the revised Project, and were available to receive input on well location and AWPF location development, and receive comments on suggested content for the EIR / scope of analysis. The meetings were conducted in an open house format, with a brief presentation by District staff and the environmental consultant. Comments were accepted in writing and orally via court reporter. A total of 46 people signed the sign-in sheets for the scoping meeting held on July 12, 2017. The District received 91 pieces of scoping correspondence including 48 emails, 29 written comments submitted by mail, 6 written comments submitted at the scoping meetings, and 8 oral comments 2 Two notices were published in the same newspaper on June 22, 2017; the legal notice and advertisement. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background submitted at the scoping meetings. The primary environmental concerns raised during the 2017 scoping period are summarized in Table 2-1, which also cross-references to the applicable EIR sections where the comment is addressed. 2.4.3 Public Review This document is being circulated to local, state, and federal agencies, and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report. Publication of this Draft EIR marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period, during which written comments may be directed by email to purewatersoquelceqa@esassoc.com, or by regular mail to the following address: Pure Water Soquel Project CEQA 4041 Soquel Drive, Ste. A-501 Soquel, CA 95073-3105 An electronic version of the Draft EIR is available on the District’s website at: www.soquelcreekwater.org. Requests for hardcopies or CDs of the EIR should be sent to Melanie Mow Schumacher, P.E. at melanies@soquelcreekwater.org. The Draft EIR will also be available for public review during the 45-day comment period at the following locations: • • Public libraries – Central Branch, 224 Church Street, Santa Cruz – Branciforte Branch, 230 Gault Street, Santa Cruz – Garfield Park Branch, 705 Woodrow Avenue, Santa Cruz – Live Oak Branch, 2380 Portola Drive, Santa Cruz – Aptos Branch, 7695 Soquel Drive, Aptos – Porter Memorial Library, 3050 Porter Street, Soquel – La Selva Branch, 316 Estrella Avenue, La Selva Beach Soquel Creek Water District Office, located at 5180 Soquel Drive, Soquel, California 2.4.4 Responses to Comments and Final EIR Written and oral comments submitted by members of the public and received by the District during the 45-day Draft EIR public review period will be addressed in a Responses to Comments document. The Draft EIR, the Responses to Comments document, along with any changes to the Draft EIR, will together constitute the Final EIR. The Soquel Creek Water District Board of Directors will then consider EIR certification. 3 Upon EIR certification, the District may proceed to take action on Project approval. If the District approves the Project even though significant 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 154090. Prior to approving a project, the lead agency shall certify that the EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, that the decision-making body was presented with, reviewed and considered the information in the EIR prior to project approval, and that the EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgement and analysis. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background impacts identified by the EIR cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the District must make one or more written findings for each of those significant impacts, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding (CEQA Guidelines Section 15091). 2.4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting At the time of project approval, CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting and mitigation monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (CEQA, Section 21081.6; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15097). This EIR identifies and presents mitigation measures that would form the basis of such a monitoring program. Any measures adopted by the District as conditions of approval for the Project will be included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to support compliance. 2.4.6 Organization of this EIR This EIR is organized into eight chapters, as follows: • Chapter 1, Summary. This chapter presents a summary of the Project, environmental impacts and mitigation measures, cumulative analyses, and Project alternatives. • Chapter 2, Introduction. This chapter describes the project purpose, background, EIR organization, and review process. • Chapter 3, Project Description. This chapter describes the Project, including Project objectives, a summary of Project components, and information about Project construction and proposed operations. The chapter also lists required permits and approvals. • Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. This chapter is subdivided into sections for each environmental resource topic. Each section describes the environmental and regulatory setting, significance criteria, and approach to the analysis for that resource topic. It then presents an analysis of potential environmental impacts and the Project-specific mitigation measures that have been developed to address significant and potentially significant impacts. • Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts. This chapter is subdivided into sections for each environmental resource topic. Each section describes the potential environmental impacts of the Project and identifies similar projects that could have similar impacts. A determination is made as to whether the Project, in combination with other projects, could have a significant impact to the resource in question. • Chapter 6, Other CEQA Issues. This chapter discusses growth-inducing effects, summarizes the cumulative impacts, identifies the significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the Project is implemented, and significant irreversible changes. • Chapter 7, Alternatives. This chapter restates the Project objectives and describes the alternatives to the Project that meet said objectives and compares their impacts to those of the Project. This chapter also summarizes the alternatives that were considered but rejected from further analysis. • Chapter 8, Report Preparers. This chapter lists the EIR authors and contributors. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background _________________________ 2.5 References Black & Veatch, 2016. Technical Memorandum on Water Quality Impacts Assessment Related to Water Purchase with City of Santa Cruz Water Department. June 21, 2016. Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/WQ_BV_Memo.pdf. Accessed on February 9, 2018. Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) 2017. Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Final Draft. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District by Carollo Engineers. November 2017. City of Santa Cruz, 2015. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration – Cooperative Water Transfer, Groundwater Recharge, and Resource Management Pilot Project. December 2015. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2018. Water Supply – Production and Rainfall Data Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/our-water-groundwater/annual-waterproduction-2007-current. Accessed on June 25, 2018. Soquel Creek Water District and Central Water District (District and CWD), 2007. Groundwater Management Plan – 2007 Soquel-Aptos Area. April 2007. Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reports/groundwatermanagement-plan-2007-final-complete-with-figures.pdf. Accessed on February 9, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email  Scott Achelis (January 2, 2017) Expresses support for the project. Skip Allan (December 26, 2016) Expresses support for the project. Joyce Anue (December 21, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction regarding the level of consideration given to project alternatives.  Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Ask why water transfers from the San Lorenzo River have not been made, asks whether due to water chemistry.  Requests that more consideration be given to the Lochquifer alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks about effects of treatment plant effluent on ocean water quality and marine life. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks if salt water intrusion will have progressed significantly by the time the project is operational. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks why free sources of water are not being utilized instead. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks whether aquifer recharge by 2040 is fast enough.  Jean Bathke (November 27, 2016) Expresses support for water transfers as a first option, with recycled water as a backup.  beachhousemail (December 13, 2016) Requests the project be built on a different site. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on community members, aesthetics, traffic, noise, smell, and property values. All Chapters Leah Berman (December 21, 2016) Expresses opposition to the project, citing future generations. Pete Biocini (January 2, 2017) Citing effluent and chlorine, expresses opposition to locating treatment plant in residential area.  Chapter 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Requests addresses of other similar treatment facilities in California. Clifford Bowen (January 4, 2017) Source water quality should be evaluated for contaminants, including trace organics. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks about geological composition of the groundwater basin. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Asks about residence time and mixing ratio before extraction. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater   Asks about water quality monitoring costs. Asks about safeguards in the event of a wastewater plant upset or contaminant dumping into wastewater system. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Richard Buddington (December 21, 2016) Expresses support for the project. Joseph Calcagno (November 17,2016) Suggests putting in reservoirs in the Santa Cruz Mountains due to high rainfall in the area. Anne Carlson (December 23, 2016) Requests the use of percolation ponds for replenishment; which could have benefits on Chapter 7.0, Alternatives wildlife, aesthetics, and recreation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Property Values) 2-12 Chapter 7.0, Alternatives ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) John & Sandra Carpenter (December 26, 2016) Expresses support for the project and requests regular project updates for customers.  Alisa & Dennis Case (December 27, 2016) Expresses support for the project; and requests information regarding cost/benefit analysis of project vs. alternatives.  Larry Chapin (December 20, 2016) Asks for clarification regarding project need: saltwater intrusion, overdraft conditions, or Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background a combination of both? Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern that if project is constructed and needs to expand, eminent domain will be used to remove residences.  States that alternative sites should not be ruled out due to the presence of monarch butterfly habitat. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern with conceptual design, namely orientation of blowers towards residences. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Questions ability of project to mitigate for noise, odor, light, chemical storage, waste, earthquake safety issues to less than significant; and raises concern for sensitive receptors. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Questions the adequacy of public notice. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Suggest using excess water from Santa Cruz as an alternative and questions why this was not mentioned as an option at the scoping meetings. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Questions the safety of recharging the aquifer with treated water. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Zandra Hughes, Willowbrook Community Expresses disappointment in the format of the public scoping meeting. (December 8, 2016)  Requests details on type of recharge well proposed. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests information regarding baseline testing, including scope and persons responsible. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Requests information regarding devaluation of property. Requests information regarding project sponsors. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks for access to other scoping comments and requests timeframe for scoping period. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Agrees with need to protect aquifers and the potential need for the project but emphasizes that the location is not suitable. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Conceptual Design) 2-13  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Michael Cooper (December 20, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction with notification process. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background  Expresses opposition to project, citing property values. Deborah Cypert (December 8, 2016) Douglas Deitch, Monterey Bay Conservancy (January 5, 2017) Deb Dixon (December 2, 2016) Requests information regarding project. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern regarding discharge of brine into ocean. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water States opposition to artificial product being injected into drinking and ground water systems. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Notes that District's activities affect commenter's private wells; and that local and regional Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater government agencies, including the District, have failed to implement (or otherwise follow) existing regulations (e.g., 1987 Well Ordinance) related to groundwater extraction and basin overdraft. States feasibility of direct potable reuse is not far off, and project is not logical. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Claims District has only junior water rights that are limited to surplus groundwater. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Recommends the Probuild site at 41st and Soquel Dr. & the San Lorenzo Lumber site on Chapter 7.0, Alternatives 41st as project alternatives. States site near Soquel Creek in Capitola (pump station next to CVS) has caused odor and noise issues. Asks how project location will be different. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks if District will consider collaborating with County on compostable toilets for all new construction projects. Deb Dixon (December 7, 2016)  States that scoping presentation did not provide details on what treatment facility would Chapter 3.0, Project Description look like. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Recommends that scoping meeting should include a question/answer session; asks for Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background information regarding scoping comment period and noticing. Deb Dixon (December 13, 2016) Expresses concerns regarding project's impact on odor. Section 4.3, Air Quality Asks for information for the wastewater treatment process. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks for an explanation of the differences in appearance of an advanced purification facility that treats secondary effluent versus one that treats raw sewage. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Asks why curtailment of new construction has not occurred given the District's emergency status; and recommends turning pools into water cisterns  States county code as it relates to the emptying of swimming pool water. Suggests use of pools for water storage.  Asks whether a new raw wastewater pump station would have negative noise/odor impacts on residents off Center Street. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-14 Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Deb Dixon (December 13, 2016) (cont.) Asks whether existing odor/noise impacts at the Soquel Pump Station; or outfalls at Capitola Beach can be improved.  Jim Dixson & Patricia McGlynn (January 4, 2016) Expresses support for the project.  Recommends that consideration of river water transfers and desalinated water as a combination to address overdraft and seawater intrusion. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends taking ambient noise readings at all times of day and at Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration appropriate/varying distances. Suggests attention be paid to the monotone sounds and vibration of a pump. Susan Drake (December 21, 2016) Expresses support for project.  Asks whether recycled water is less expensive than desalination.  Anne Earl (December 21, 2016) Expresses support for project.  Marlene Eckhardt (December 21, 2016) Provides email address. Erik Eriksen, UCSC Physical Plant (January 4, 2017) Expresses concern that in-lieu transfers of San Lorenzo River water have not been seriously considered; that additional conservation/efficiency measures that should be considered; and recommends implementation of multiple water supply options rather than one large project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Claims public notice/outreach was poor. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Vivian Fenner-Evans (December 11, 2016) Expresses concerns regarding project public noticing efforts. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Leslie Fette (December 7, 2016) Commenter summarizes information from public scoping meeting. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Corrine Flanagan (December 23, 2016) Disagrees with locating the project in a residential neighborhood. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Durand Forcier and Lori Purvis (December 6, 2016) Expresses concern regarding contaminants that could remain in source water prior to being injected (whether they are regulated or not), lists several sources of contaminants of particular concern, requests testing be done post-treatment and prior to recharge, and that results be made public. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Suggests using water from the San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek or rainwater catchment as project alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Fred J. Geiger (December 24, 2016) Suggests water from the San Lorenzo River as an alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Darren Gertler (January 2, 2017) Disagrees with locating proposed facilities in a residential neighborhood. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding intention of project for grant opportunities instead of actual need. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Chapter 3.0, Project Description  References comments regarding the City of Watsonville's plant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-15  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Darren Gertler (January 2, 2017) (cont.) Expresses concern regarding contamination risks associated with injecting treated water. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Offers to attend public input sessions. Ed Gilbert (December 17, 2016) Maria Gitin (December 21, 2016) Expresses concern for long-term health of water source, believes aquifer replenishment may be a good solution. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Recommends prioritizing the minimization of odor impacts. Section 4.3, Air Quality Identifies lack of information in regards to appearance of facility. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Requests noise levels associated with treatment facility. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests information on chemical use and waste generation. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Recommends water sharing with other Districts and catchment of rainwater as alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks whether wells in Vienna Woods will be re-opened. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Paul Gratz (January 5, 2017) States systemic problems in regional water supply management have caused current water supply problems. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Jacquelyn Griffith (December 6, 2016) Recommends initiating water transfers until the recycled water project is implemented; states Live Oak water is a safe mixture of surface and groundwater. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Jacquelyn Griffith (December 6, 2016) Recommends that Board Member Lather refrain from participating in decisions relating to the District and recycled water.  Catharine Gunderson (December 22, 2016) Encourages continued conservation until funding is identified for project construction.  Dave Hack (December 16, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction with the amount of time and information being provided to neighbors regarding the project. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Asks where the environmental document can be obtained. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Asks why a residential neighborhood is being considered as the project location instead of a more commercial area. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding project odors and flooding Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests additional information regarding the Project. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Cheryl Haiflich (January 4, 2017) Olivia Heir (January 4, 2017) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Expresses support for the project.  Requests that residential water bills not be raised.  Expresses support for the project.  2-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Don Hoernschemeyer (November 24, 2016) Darren Howe (National Marine Fisheries Service) (December 19, 2016) Rich Ignatowicz (December 15, 2016) Requests information on estimated cost of project.  Suggests procurement of supplemental water from Santa Cruz. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Describes NMFS jurisdiction over NOAA Trust Resources within the project area. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Recommends that potential effects to ESA listed salmonids, critical habitat, and EFH, be considered. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Requests list of analytes in water that will be tested and asks about pharmaceuticals and hazardous substances effects. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Describes challenges of addressing an impacted aquifer if contamination is encountered. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Recommends not going through with the project. Natalya Jackson (January 4, 2017) Expresses dissatisfaction with notification process, requests extension of comment period. Michael Johnson (November 20, 2016) Requests a copy of the EIR. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background   Asks for details regarding the costs of the project. Jan Karwin (December 19, 2016) Requests information as to the lifespan of the project. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks details regarding the project's impacts on the environment. All Chapters Asks about requirements under the Clean Water Act and for EPA guidance on the use of source water for Recharge. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests that the EIR consider the adequacy of water purification technologies to remove contaminants, including industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals, and potential health hazards. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Requests that a cost-benefit analysis be conducted and public acceptance be characterized in regards to project alternatives (including water from Santa Cruz and from the Desalination plant in Moss Landing).  Barb Kiem (December 21, 2016) Expresses support for project provided that the cost is reasonable.  Rick Longinotti, Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives (December 20, 2016) States that project objectives should include avoiding salt water intrusion. Chapter 3.0, Project Description States EIR should study water transfers from San Lorenzo River. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends consideration of alternatives that optimize transfers using Loch Lomond reservoir during periods of turbidity and lower river flows, and use of this water ahead of pumping from Beltz wells. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Danielle Lucchesi (December 13, 2016) Expresses opposition to project in a residential neighborhood and the need for more project details. Marc Lucchesi (December 13, 2016) Objects to use of the [West Annex] for treatment plant.  Laura Manning, Charley Hodson, & Joyce Imus (December 22, 2016) Expresses displeasure with project name, suggest renaming.  Expresses concerns relating to odor. Section 4.3, Air Quality Expresses concerns regarding potential spills and leaks Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Joe Martinez (January 5, 2017) Supports project and suggests accelerating project schedule. Robert M. Martone (December 19, 2016) Expresses opposition to project location at West Annex site. Todd Mayer (December 14, 2016) All Chapters   Expresses concern relating to the project's impacts on noise, light, odor, vibrations, traffic, and property values. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Suggests using water from Neary Lagoon. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Opposes project location at West Annex site. Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on health, odor, and property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on health due to airborne contaminants, odors, animals, and flies. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  (Property Values)  John McCoy (November 23, 2016) Requests inclusion on project mailing list. Richard McIntosh (January 4, 2017) Expresses project support as a neighbor to the West Annex site.  Requests information regarding treatment system and safeguards, specifically related to protecting the recharge system. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks about removal of heavy metals in water prior to recharge. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater John & Penny Mello (November 21, 2016) Expresses concerns regarding the project's cost, necessity, and impacts to residents; particularly noise, length of construction, and traffic near the North Main Street Soquel Water Station Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Bob Mettalia (January 5, 2017) Requests a definitive project description that identifies the specific project proposed, rather than a range of options. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests analysis of project noise levels and associated impacts on health; and other noise and air quality effects. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests information regarding operational maintenance including solid waste and hazardous waste removal. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Property Values) 2-18 (Cost) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Bob Mettalia (January 5, 2017) (cont.) Requests consideration of various project locations; stating preference of advanced treatment at SC WWTF Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Requests project cost information and effects on ratepayers. Deborah Nordland & Alexandra Gonzalez Vivienne Orgel (November 17, 2016) Teresa Parodi (January 1, 2017) Suggests reviewing notification requirements for effectiveness. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Recommends removing raw water treatment from consideration. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests information regarding length of construction period and associated impacts. Chapter 3.0, Project Description All Chapters Requests information regarding construction and operations impacts related to noise, traffic, odors, hazards (chemicals), lighting/aesthetics, and water quality. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests information regarding the impacts on property values.  Asks about precedents for this project and availability of analysis of effects of those projects on the community.  Inquires about project costs and effects on ratepayers.  Inquires about other potential uses for the Headquarters-West Annex site if the treatment facility is sited elsewhere.  Expresses concerns regarding quality of water to be recharged. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Suggests using reclaimed water for non-potable uses. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Suggests using rainwater or river/creek water as an alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Susan E. Parodi (January 1, 2017)  Opposes project location at Headquarters-West Annex site. Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on air quality, health, and environment. Section 4.3, Air Quality All Chapters  Opposes project location in residential neighborhood. Expresses concern regarding air quality, odors, aesthetics, property values, and wildlife. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.4, Biological Resources Ronald L. Jr. Perrigo Recommends using secondary water from the SC WWTF and using railcars to transport water during off-peak hours while an actual pipeline is being constructed. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Fadra Perrin (December 13, 2016) Opposes project location at Headquarters-West Annex site. Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on noise, odor, the environment, and property values. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  2-19  (Property Values)  Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration All Chapters  (Property Values) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Robert Pleines (December 21, 2016) Expresses support for the project provided there are no significant impacts on health. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Ken Pomper (December 6, 2016) Suggests EIR consider issues relating to graffiti, geology, seismicity, leaks, flooding, All Chapters groundwater quality, ecosystem health, safety to children, traffic, noise, property values, biological resources, maintenance/inspection, land use, easements, community input, lifespan of facility, homeowner indemnity, and cost. Brian Price (December 27, 2016) Expresses support for project.  (Property Values, Homeowner's Indemnity Insurance, Cost)  Suggests including catchment basins for rainwater and grey water systems as part of project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concerns relating to odor and subsequent impacts on property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Jack Roberts (December 16, 2016) Suggests EIR consider impacts on traffic, surrounding businesses, and air quality as a result of construction activities. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Chris Robinson (December 31, 2016) Expresses concern relating to project's odor impacts. Section 4.3, Air Quality Acknowledges potential uses of the West Annex are limited due to the PG&E transfer station, but urges that any development not have a negative effect on the neighborhood.  (Property Values)  (Economic impacts)   Elisabeth Russell (December 22, 2016) Expresses support for project. Mona Salvage (January 5, 2017) Opposes West Annex project location due to current zoning designation. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern that no other locations were identified. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Expresses concern relating to impacts on property values. Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on odor. Section 4.3, Air Quality Expresses concern relating to public noticing and disclosure efforts. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Jerrold Scattini (December 21, 2016) Suggests using rainwater runoff from the streets for groundwater replenishment. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Steve Schnaar (December 8, 2016) Expresses support for project provided that the water is clean. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Robert Schneider (December 8, 2016) Questions the District's ability to secure reuse landscape irrigation customers. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Proposes refining project objectives regarding District's desire to diversify water supply Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background portfolio and affordability and diversification. Lisa Sheridan (December 21, 2016) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Suggests consideration of more than one treatment site for financial reasons. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends putting EIR process on hold until an agreement is made with the City of Santa Cruz WWTF for secondary treated water. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background 2-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Lisa Sheridan (December 21, 2016) (cont.) Requests information relating to odor effects. Section 4.3, Air Quality Suggests the pump station area near Nob Hill Foods for the treatment facility. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests information regarding the project's impacts on traffic, construction time, the environment, road repairs, odor, and noise. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic All Chapters Recommends EIR include the analysis of various scenarios possible for multi-system Chapter 7.0, Alternatives water recharge that includes grey water treatment and water catchment from creek and rain water. Asks if alternate sites in commercial or agricultural areas have been considered as project locations. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Requests information on project's impacts on property values. Randa Solick (December 7, 2016) Requests District expedite efforts to obtain water transfers from the City of Santa Cruz, Chapter 7.0, Alternatives while assuring the safety of mixing surface water with groundwater. Notes District is not taking advantage of existing water rights to North Coast water Requests that cost comparisons between water transfers and Project be done with accuracy. Recommends postponing project until technology relating to filtering out contaminants such as nanoparticles is improved. Ken & Michelle Spangler (December 13, 2016) Jeff Stallings, Jim Winters & Mary Winters (December 13, 2016)  Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Opposes project location in a residential neighborhood. Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on property values, odor, traffic, noise, and risk to groundwater quality. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Property Values)  Objects to use of the [West Annex] for treatment plant. Requests information on project impacts to noise, light, property values, aesthetics, odors, safety, sanitation issues, and chemical storage. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Asks when NOP/IS will be available at libraries and whether commenters may provide multiple comments. 2-21  (Property Values)  Requests information on indemnity insurance for homeowners. [Name Withheld]* (November 27, 2016)  Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Karen Summers (January 2, 2017) Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on property values, surrounding business, and schools due to air quality (odors), noise, lighting, aesthetics, traffic, hazards, and safety issues relating to project. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Suggests locating project in a different location, possibly on opposite side of freeway on the Soquel Avenue frontage road. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Chrissy Thomure (December 8, 2016) Suggests prioritizing other water efficiency measures, such as rainwater catchment structures and not utilizing drinking water. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Joan DJ Timpany (November 19, 2016) Recommends doing water transfers as a project alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Jude Todd (January 5, 2017) Recommends that EIR discuss which chemicals will be monitored in the treated water, and at what detection levels; address chemical mixing; and consider dose-response curves of endocrine disruptors. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Suggests that all residents who receive water from the Purisima Aquifer be able to vote on the project.  Suggests using water transfer from Santa Cruz (Lochquifer plan) as an alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks whether project adoption would prevent other possible solutions. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern regarding project-related noise, odor, traffic, flooding (elevated water table), property values. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Laura Wickman (January 4, 2017) Disagrees with project location in a residential area and on/near "safe routes to schools"; suggests placement in agricultural location. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Jim Winters, Mary Winters, & Jeff Stallings (January 5, 2017) Expresses concern regarding proximity of treatment facility to homes on adjacent property. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern relating to stormwater runoff from District offices onto Gary Drive through areas used for play by residents. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Expresses concern that proposed treatment facility may limit emergency access to PG&E substation. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Describes concern relating to the dismissal of potential sites due to the presence of eucalyptus trees/monarch butterflies or affluent neighborhoods; requests reasoning for rejecting other sites. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks if project location would be used for tours to highlight new technologies in wastewater recycling. Chapter 3, Project Description Josh Trowbridge (December 14, 2016) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-22  (Property Values, Impacts on surrounding businesses)  (Property Values) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Jim Winters, Mary Winters, & Jeff Stallings (January 5, 2017) (cont.) Suggests a new tree on commenters property would more effectively screen the proposed treatment facility than would plantings on the project site Section 4.1, Aesthetics Expresses concerns relating to the project's impacts on property values and quality of Section 4.1, Aesthetics life as a result of noise, odor, aesthetics, and light issues resulting from implementation Section 4.3, Air Quality of the project. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Deb Wirkman (December 21, 2016) Requests information regarding the project's comment period and visual materials from Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background scoping meeting. Deb Wirkman (January 4, 2017; January 5, 2017) Expresses concern relating to current regulations, standards and processes in place for ensuring water quality. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Disagrees with environmental benefit of reducing wastewater flow into Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary due to remaining need to discharge concentrated brine. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests information on current sewer system connections and how the contents of this wastewater is regulated and monitored.  Requests information on any contaminants that could remain in the water after advanced treatment; discusses published studies and whether health hazards due to treatment failures or other project water quality effects would be addressed. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests that leaching of metals (including Vanadium) in aquifer soils be studied. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks about baseline contaminant groundwater monitoring; suggests use of EPA rules when selecting analytes. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Recommends that EIR describe water quality monitoring and safeguarding plans in detail. Asks about the 2-month retention time for water injected into aquifer. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks what treatment chemicals are required and if additional treatment will be done following extraction form the aquifer, prior to distribution to customers. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests information relating to the chemical composition of brine and subsequent fate/usage of brine. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Recommends evaluating in the EIR various water transfer options, including the Lochquifer project, as project alternatives and suggests that a combination of alternatives may be most effective. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends EIR include information on upgrades planned at SC WWTF to accommodate winter flows.  Notes limitations of CEC data presented in the "Santa Cruz Water Department Constituents of Emerging Concern" Report.  Recommends that the EIR address health, performance, and environmental concerns that are also address in the 2012 "Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater". Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Property Values, Financial Compensation) 2-23 Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Evelyn Bernstein (Date not provided) Expresses concerns regard project's impacts on traffic, aesthetics, noise, and odor. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic John Dickinson (Date not provided) Requests that the impact of private wells on the aquifer be considered. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks whether rainwater capture is being considered as an alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests information relating to the impacts of growth and future need for an enhanced water supply on the project. Chapter 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations Citing precipitation and stable population, states that the identified need to prevent salt water intrusion is not understood. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Recommends enhancing water catchment efforts and the use of percolation ponds. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on hazards and hazardous materials, air quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, light, greenhouse gas emissions, odor, land use and planning, biological resources, transportation, hazardous materials, and population and housing. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.14, Population and Housing Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Describes the proximity of residential homes and Soquel Elementary to the project location. Further describes the zoning designation of the West Annex site. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern about chemical use and storage, and possibility of terrorist attacks or spills. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail Richard E. Zscheile (December 11, 2016) Patricia Biocini (January 4, 2017)   (Terrorist Attacks) Suggests curtailing the use of wells within a mile of the coast.  Suggests using West Annex site as a community garden.  Lois Brown & Norman F. Nelson (December 14, 2016) Recommends using location at Cabrillo College for injection well. Susan Chapin (December 27, 2016) Expresses concern relating to the cost of the project and the project's ability to be an effective long-term solution. Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on noise, vibration, and wildlife. Chapter 3.0, Project Description  Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding existing geology and compromised safety of surrounding Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology structures from nearby sinkholes. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Requests clarification on type of facility that will be constructed. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Recommends finding a location closer to the SC WWTF to reduce amount of pipes needed. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (December 27, 2016)  Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on property values. Anne Swedberg (December 27, 2016) Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on water quality. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water  Expresses concern relating to efficacy and cost of the project. Recommends the use of a desalination plant or water catchment as project alternatives. Louise Durhan (December 19, 2016) Jillian Engbers (December 13, 2016) Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Notes odor issues near pump station in Capitola (near CVS) Recommends using tertiary water as the superior alternative. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Emphasizes the importance of ensuring superior water quality. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks about type of well-being proposed. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests protocol for baseline testing. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Asks about indemnity insurance for homeowners. Requests information on project partners and investors. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Requests to see scoping comments from other commenters. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Marilyn Garrett (January 5, 2017) Emphasizes importance of ensuring health and water quality. Opposes project due to potential impacts from toxic levels of pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Mary and Donna Guizio (January 5, 2017) Expresses concern regarding public noticing efforts. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern regarding the notification of the project to county supervisors and representatives. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern regarding the neutrality of elected individuals on the District's Board. Expresses concerns regarding project impacts related to odors, noise, aesthetics, biological resources, geology, greenhouse gas emissions, and property values, William & Denise Henning (January 4, 2017) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests that another location be considered for the project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on traffic, noise, and property values. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic 2-25  (Property Values)  (Property Values) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) John Kihoramy (January 3, 2016) Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on odor, traffic, air quality, and drainage. Further expresses other concerns relating to wastewater/sewage. Genine Leighton & Mark Janda (December 21, 2016) James Lewis & Dale Roche (December 19, 2016)  Objects to location of treatment facility in a residential area. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic States District has not been able to properly clean commenter's water home system in the past.  Opposes use of West Annex site for locating the treatment facility.   Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on property values. Suggests the use of a less populated area as a project alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on odor, noise and sensitive receptors. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests that District consider conveying water from the SC WWTF to the West Annex Chapter 3.0, Project Description site and not consider treatment of primary sewage. Offers experience-based perspective on appropriate buffer between sewage treatment plant and residences. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Suggests that members of the Board visit sites operating MBR plants to determine viability of Project.  Expresses concern relating to impacts of light and noise as a result of the project. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Mentions the role trees play near the Lode Street Pump Station. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Referencing a 2011 storm drain failure near the Lode Street pump station, commenter expresses concern regarding the potential impact of a sewage force main failure. Patricia M. Megna (December 9, 2016) Michael (December 20, 2016) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  Recommends utilizing SC WWTF to treat additional and more complex waste. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern relating to project-related noise, odor, traffic, flooding (elevated water table), property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic  (Property Values) Expresses concerns relating to project impacts on surrounding property values based on name given to project. Suggests moving project closer to Santa Cruz to minimize length of pipeline needed. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Asks why a project location is disqualified due to the presence of butterfly habitat. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives 2-26  (Property Values)  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) Linda Mitchell (January 3, 2016)  Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on property values and quality of life.  Opposes project location at West Annex site. Expresses concern with public noticing process. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern relating to project's proposed land use in a residential area. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on odor, aesthetics, noise, vibration, lighting, and traffic. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Suggests desalination or utilizing river runoff as project alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Bill and Ann Mork (Date not provided) Opposes location of treatment facility. William & Anna Mork (December 8, 2016) Opposes locating a wastewater treatment facility at West Annex. Expresses concern over potential odors. Section 4.3, Air Quality [Name Withheld]* (December 21, 2016) Expresses concern for and requests consideration of project's impacts on aesthetics, air quality, hazards, noise, vibration, odor, traffic, light, and health issues. Section 2.2.12, Noise Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests thorough investigation of alternatives, including location alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives   Requests consideration of any lawsuits that have taken place as a result of odor issues. [Name Withheld]* (January 6, 2017) Requests information on odor control methods. Section 4.3, Air Quality Requests information on the treatment of solid wastes. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Requests information regarding chemicals used during pretreatment process. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Describes the importance of determining the presence of odorless substances that may cause harm and requests information regarding protocol for accidental releases of such substances. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Describes impacts that treatment facilities can have on human health and requests that more consideration be given to risks and benefits associated with the project. All Sections Expresses enthusiasm for format of scoping meetings. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background  Expresses support for the Project. Recommends evaluation of a regional groundwater management solution, as well as a solution to the immediate overdraft problem. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-27 Chapter 3.0, Project Description ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Recommends advanced purification be done at SC WWTF provided that acreage and maximum potential capacity are sufficient. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests information on the capacity of the pipelines. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests information on water quality monitoring protocol. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks if project will include BMPs from the state's DPR Uniform Water Recycling Criteria. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (January 6, 2017) (cont.) Asks about maximum capacity raw wastewater possible without negatively impacting waste flows to SC WWTF. John J. Olejnik (California Department of Transportation) (December 19, 2016) Kari Olsen (January 5, 2017)  Recommends District work closely with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC); and consider Highway 1 improvements. Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Describes the need for encroachment permits for work within State right-of-ways. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests re-evaluation of sites considered in Feasibility Study; cites site requirements for different project options. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asserts that picking a site location in a residential area could result in a negative response from the community. [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) Requests a full re-evaluation of potential sites listed in Feasibility Study.  Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Expresses appreciation for the extension of the scoping comment period. [Name Withheld]* (January 2, 2017) [Name Withheld]* (No date provided)  Describes close proximity of residential homes to project. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on air quality, soil, noise, hazardous materials, traffic, and risks associated with pipeline construction. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Encourages consideration of an alternative site in a more rural location. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern relating to public safety in the event that errors at the treatment facility occur. Chapter 3, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks about reasoning for proposing project in a residential area. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern regarding toxic substances that may not get filtered out prior to consumption. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests clarification regarding the necessity and monitoring of a 2 month residence time Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater in aquifer prior to water extraction. Asks about impurities that would be in recharge water. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater 2-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Requests an extension of the scoping comment period, expresses concern with format used at scoping meetings; recommends additional public outreach methods. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern that the District is pursuing grant funding for the Project, but not for alternative solutions. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (December 19, 2016) [Name Withheld]* (No date provided) [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) Requests a Special District Election be held to allow voters to approve/disapprove the project after EIR is complete.   Recommends that scoping comment period be extended. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Requests information relating to brine and its impact on streams in the event of earthquakes or facility failure. Further requests information on associated disposal method and resulting impacts of disposal. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Recommends considering other alternatives, such as the use of percolation ponds. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests evaluation on how 1.3 million gallons per day can be recharged and resulting impacts to slope stability and seismic activity. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Expresses concern regarding property values and impacts on availability of housing.  Describes information distributed at the time District acquired the West Annex site which identified future site use for office expansion and parking.  Opposes project site location in a residential area.  Requests that all project alternatives be fully considered in the EIR including the use of Chapter 7.0, Alternatives recharge ponds and stormwater diversion. Requests that people outside the Districts service area be allowed to vote via Special Election to approve or disapprove the project.  Requests that a moratorium be considered until District is able to achieve safe pumping levels.  Requests that the EIR consider issues relating to growth and evaluate consistency with Chapter 6.0, Other CEQA Considerations the 1987 Santa Cruz County Well Ordinance. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Requests that the EIR address impacts relating to climate change. Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Requests details relating to the proposed injection wells and any details regarding potential future changes to the injection wells. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests that EIR address the project impacts related to soils and seismicity, and related impacts on infrastructure (e.g., transportation corridors). Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests that EIR address potential failures of injection wells. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests that EIR consider impacts of project on creeks and flood control. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water 2-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Requests that EIR investigate the impacts on microorganism populations as a result of injection. Further requests that EIR consider the ability of microorganisms to eliminate CECs. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information regarding the project's impacts related to traffic (including emergency response), noise, dust, and water quality. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.16, Public Services Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests information on the material type to be used for pipelines and potential hazards associated with reaction of pipeline material with treated water. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests information regarding impacts of mixing groundwater with injected water. Further requests information on resulting potential hazards, changes to aquifer chemistry, and changes to microorganism composition. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests that EIR list out chemicals planned for storage and consider potential hazards that may occur in the event of a spill. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Requests that EIR consider City of Watsonville as a source of treated wastewater, among other alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests that EIR identify the railroad owners among the agencies from which the project may require encroachment permits and easements. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) (cont.)  (Microorganism composition) Requests that EIR consider the impacts of tree removal along Highway 1 on aesthetics Section 4.1, Aesthetics and carbon sequestration. Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Requests that EIR evaluate impacts of construction and operation of the Willowbrook injection well to residents with regards to diesel, dust, noise, and night-time disturbances. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests that EIR address cultural resources. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources Requests that EIR address impacts of subsurface saturation at all soil levels and for a radius extending at least 1/2 mile. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information regarding the project's impacts on air quality and long-term health. Section 4.3, Air Quality Asks if back-up emergency power generators will be present that could increase emissions and noise. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests information on the use of any additional microwave or wireless monitoring devices at the West Annex site and resulting impacts on nearby residents. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests that EIR evaluate project's impacts on emergency response plans. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.16, Public Services 2-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) (cont.) Requests that EIR identify any known contaminant plumes that could be mobilized as a Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials result of the project. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests that hazards relating to brine transport be evaluated in the event of seismic activity or system failure. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Requests information on potential health impacts of contaminants in water that may not Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater have been filtered out due to human error or system failure. Requests that EIR evaluate health impacts that could result from potential chemical accidents, seismic activity, and terrorist events. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Requests information regarding the project's ability to uphold Santa Cruz County Code Chapter 7.70.010. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests an evaluation of the project's compatibility with established land use designations for the West Annex site. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation  (Terrorist Events)  Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on property values. Requests information regarding any tanks that may be present and whether they would Chapter 3.0, Project Description be underground. Expresses concern regarding the impacts of operational noise on residents, wildlife, and safety. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Requests evaluation of the effect a temporary moratorium on new service connections could have on the amount of water required to be injected. Requests consideration of the economic impacts resulting from the presence of additional out-of-county workers. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  Section 4.14, Population and Housing Requests information regarding potential economic impacts as a result of contracting outside agencies for project.  Requests consideration of the economic impacts resulting from the displacement of people occupying residences at the West Annex.  Disagrees with Initial Study's conclusions regarding emergency response times. Section 4.16, Public Services Requests consideration of the need for additional agency involvement as a result of potential chemical spills. Section 4.16, Public Services Requests evaluation of the construction and operational impacts of injection wells on the Cabrillo College and Willowbrook area on communities, businesses, and schools. All Chapters Requests information on the presence or absence of educational displays that will be placed near the Willowbrook Injection site. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests information on the project's operational noise. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration 2-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope Recommends the installation of a pedestrian/bikeway over the pipeline route. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests evaluation of the impacts of pipeline rupture due to seismic activity on rail activity and safety. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Recommends evaluation of the impacts of pipeline construction under Highway 1 on the stability of roadways. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Requests evaluation of the impacts of brine disposal. Section 4.4, Biological Resources Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests information methods of brine disposal. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests evaluation of any future energy use and policy requirements, and energy source and capacity to serve. Section 4.6, Energy Demand and Conservation Requests information on monitoring systems, their locations, operators, and reliability of response systems. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests that project not impact California Native American tribal resources or cultural resources; suggests consultation of local representatives. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources Describes information presented in the "Evaluation of the Feasibility of Developing Uniform Water Recycling Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse" Report produced by the SWRCB; requests this information be considered in the EIR. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Describes research indicating that there is no safe dose of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  References inadequacies in studies conducted for the San Diego advanced wastewater treatment recycling facility. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water  Expresses concern regarding the potential release of hazardous contaminants into the groundwater supply. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Describes Central Coast Water Board's priorities in regards to attaining the highest water quality feasible; SWRCB Anti-Degradation Policy, and California Health and Safety Code 5411 Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) (cont.) Recommends evaluation of project costs to ratepayers in relation to the Human Right to Water with particular consideration of the low-income population.  Requests that all residents in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin be allowed to approve or disapprove the project via a special ballot election.  Requests inclusion of issues relating to public noticing, public involvement, and transparency. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-32 Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Expresses concern regarding the risk of contaminant migration and its impacts on chemical mixing, microbes, and other users of the water supply. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Requests that EIR evaluate the impacts of any potential COCs and CECs to occur. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information on available studies relating to the chemical mixing of groundwater with treated wastewater. Further requests the evaluation of impacts on microbial action, population, and by-products in the Purisima aquifer. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information on ammonium levels in the Purisima Aquifer the O’Neill Well, and if project could impact the already elevated levels of ammonium in the Purisima Aquifer and the O'Neill well. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Recommends water transfers from Santa Cruz as a project alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (January 5, 2017) (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (December 19, 2016) Nancy Yellin (December 30, 2016) Requests information on how the project would be more cost effective and faster than water transfers.  Objects to using recycled wastewater for groundwater replenishment.  Disagrees with using the Orange County Water District as a model for this project due to difference in population size.  Expresses concern relating to the impacts of wind patterns on odor. Section 4.3, Air Quality Expresses concern relating to water quality, odor, and taste of resulting drinking water. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Proposes the use of conservation efforts and rainwater runoff as a project alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses support for the Desalination Plant in Moss Landing. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (written) [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016)  Requests that all users be given the opportunity to vote on project via a ballot. Expresses concern that private well owners and small water companies do not have the means to determine whether the injected water has been stored in the aquifer for the requisite 2 months prior to extraction. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests a moratorium be put into effect and makes reference to John Leopold's (from the County Board of Supervisors) statement that the County will stop issuing building permits if water agencies say they have insufficient water. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  Requests information regarding pharmaceuticals in the waste stream that may remain undetected. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests evaluation of the potential release of arsenic from mineral deposits in the aquifer due to the use of hydrogen peroxide. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information regarding the 8-inch brine pipelines. Chapter 3.0, Project Description 2-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (written) (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) (cont.) No name (December 7, 2016) Requests information regarding contaminants of future concern. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Describes issues relating to nanoparticles and flocculation and resulting system malfunctions. Requests information on system back-ups and monitoring efforts in place. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Expresses concern regarding timeline for project. Recommends moving project site closer to mountains. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction regarding level of information presented in scoping presentation; format of Scoping meeting and information availability Chapter 2, Introduction [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Recommends using water transfers from the river from the City of Santa Cruz. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends using a non-residential area for the project location. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends evaluating the use of percolation pond and the potential of soil microbial action. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding the risk of human error and mechanical failures that could taint drinking water. Chapter 2, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016)  Opposes the injection of treated water. No name (December 7, 2016) Expresses concern relating to hazards associated with injecting treated water. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Expresses concern relating to the ability of pollution to mobilize within the region. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Expresses concern relating to the project's impacts on property values; asks if local contractors will perform work. Requests information regarding the disposal of treatment byproducts/wastes.  Chapter 3.0, Project Description No name (December 7, 2016) Recommends District use secondary or tertiary water for their own gardens and landscaping needs. [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Request information relating to project impacts on odor. Section 4.3, Air Quality Recommends harvesting winter river water runoff to recharge wells during the dry season. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern relating to depth of injections wells and regarding the position of injection wells in relation to production wells. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Recommends the District use the pump station site near Nob Hill for Project and expresses interest in Moss Landing project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Dan Steingrube (December 7, 2016) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-34  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (written) (cont.) No name (December 7, 2016) Doug Mitchell (December 7, 2016) Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on odor, noise, and lighting. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Encourages consideration of a different site. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Opposes locating treatment facility at West Annex site. Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on odor, light, vibration, hazardous materials, and property values. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends placing project at facility near Nob Hill. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses concerns relating to project's impacts on odor, nighttime noise, lights, and property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses support for project. Jerome E. Paul (December 7, 2016)  (Property Values)  Recommends finding another project site that is not in a residential area if EIR finds significant impacts. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives All Chapters Recommends the use of winter steam water/Lochquifer as a project alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Opposes project. Scott McGilvray (December 7, 2016)  (Property Values) Requests prioritizing and expediting water transfer efforts due to existing drought conditions. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) Evelyn Bernstein (December 7, 2016) Ken Waldvogel (December 7, 2016) Asks for information regarding the number and size of buildings/facilities that will be built as part of the project. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks for clarification regarding proposed methods for injecting water back into the ground and requests information as to what comparisons to fracking exist. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests more project details regarding the Headquarters-West Annex site and the amount of land that the project will take up. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern regarding the impacts of the project on adjacent properties, including noise, light, and trucks. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on property values. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  Expresses concern regarding format of the scoping meetings and length of NOP/IS. 2-35   (Property Values) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) (cont.) Ken Waldvogel (December 7, 2016) (cont.)  Expresses dissatisfaction regarding the public noticing process. Recommends that the truck entrance be located on Soquel Drive as opposed to Capitola Avenue. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Recommends using current entrance and exit located on Soquel Drive for project traffic. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on odor, noise, and lighting. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration  Describes the amount of lights present at the SC WWTF. Expresses concern regarding impacts to accessibility for elderly and disabled residents, and other residents in the surrounding area. Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests clarification on project timeline. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Kay Waldvogel (December 7, 2016) Suggests that scoping period be extended; and expresses dissatisfaction regarding public noticing efforts. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Mathilde Rand (December 7, 2016) Notes that other individuals outside of Soquel are drawing from the Purisima Aquifer; and asks if they will be able to provide input. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Mary Crouser (December 7, 2016) Asks if residents in commenter's area be able to obtain water for irrigation purposes by connecting residential irrigation meters.  Bruce Tanner (December 7, 2016) Describes the origin of 'primary water' and the amount that may be accessible to people.  Janine Canada (December 7, 2016) Requests information on project's source water conveyance system. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks whether a variance has been obtained for the treatment plant in a residential area. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concerns relating to the project's impacts on traffic, noise, odor, and lighting. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Asks if other project locations have been considered. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on property values. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Requests clarification regarding the length of time the District has been in a state of critical overdraft and why District continues to issue permits; recommends moratorium. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern that District is not interested in public input. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background 2-36   Requests information regarding the funding source for the project. Tom Stumbaugh (December 7, 2016)  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) (cont.) Bryce Root (December 7, 2016) Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on odor, noise and aesthetics. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding the project's impacts on property values, the ability of homeowners to sell homes in the future. Steve Foltz, Cypress Tree Homeowner's Association (December 7, 2016)  Recommends that public noticing efforts be tailored so that all nearby residents have the opportunity to hear about the project. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses concern regarding proposed well at Willowbrook and its proximity to residents. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding project comparisons to fracking. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology  Expresses preliminary project support. Expresses concern regarding the injection of chemicals. James Berg (December 7, 2016) Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater  Expresses concern relating to the project's impacts on property values. Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on odor, chemical storage, quantities of Section 4.3, Air Quality chemicals to be used, transportation of chemicals, and transfer of chemicals. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Tom Stumbaugh (December 7, 2016) Craig Ahtye Requests details regarding the amount of treatment that would occur at the West Annex site. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks for confirmation regarding the treatment facility's ability to treat the amount of water necessary for replenishment. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses preliminary support for project concept.  Objects to Project location in a residential area.  Describes ability of redwood trees to absorb water from the atmosphere. Recommends Chapter 7.0, Alternatives that the District build a structure that has the ability to extract water from the atmosphere.  Expresses concerns regarding project's impacts on odor, noise, and property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends that wastewater be treated at SC WWTF as opposed to at the West Annex site. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Expresses appreciation for format used at scoping meeting. Requests clarification regarding methodology to be used to identify different project impacts including economic impacts. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-37  (Property Values) All Chapters  (Economic Impact) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) (cont.) Tom Stumbaugh (December 7, 2016)  Requests cost comparisons between Project to water distillation. Recommends the extraction of moisture from the atmosphere similar to a process used Chapter 7.0, Alternatives by trees. Larry Freeman (December 7, 2016) Emphasizes the importance of community understanding regarding the project's ability to ensure that safe drinking water will be provided. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Expresses concern regarding community perception of CECs and the project's ability to monitor and remove CECs; and regarding other water quality regulations. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Jade Todd (December 7, 2016) Recommends that all individuals who obtain water from the Purisima aquifer be able to vote on the Project.  Jillian Engbers (December 7, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction regarding format used at scoping meeting.  [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses concern regarding the naming of the project; and public noticing/timing.  Expresses concern regarding projects impacts on noise, odor, chemicals, aesthetics, length of construction, and property values. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding project location in a residential area and project's proximity to schools, churches, and businesses. All Chapters  Expresses dissatisfaction regarding length of comment period. [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on noise, pollution, odor, property values, and aesthetics. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration  (Property Values)  Expresses dissatisfaction regarding the format of the scoping meeting. Expresses concerns regarding project's noise and odor associated with the use of raw sewage and effect on property values. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Mr. Dempsey (December 7, 2016) Recommends that a comparison be done that is available to the public regarding the quality of the drinking water before implementation of the project and after implementation of the project. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Peg Popken (December 7, 2016) Asks whether sea level rise is being considered in project siting. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Asks if an educational component will be added to prevent residents from disposing of pharmaceuticals in the toilet. Chapter 3.0, Project Description  (Property Values)  Expresses support for toilet retrofitting. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Property Values) 2-38 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016) Expresses dissatisfaction regarding format of scoping meeting; and level of detail in NOP/IS.  Expresses dissatisfaction that hard copies of the NOP/IS were not provided at the public meeting.  Recommends that the District declare a moratorium on new service connections. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern that water produced from new Granite Way well has not been used for irrigation/aquifer recharge.  Requests the EIR incorporate a discussion on economic impacts of the project.  Expresses concern regarding project's impacts on the implementation of the Lochquifer project.  Expresses concern regarding naming of Project and future use of the name.  Expresses concern regarding project's timing for optimal adoption given potential in advances in technology and other factors.  Bob Schneider (December 7, 2016) Expresses concern regarding the cost of the project and the potential resulting financial burden on ratepayers.  Form Letter 1: Expresses concern regarding the proximity of a school to the injection well proposed at Section 4.3, Air Quality Willowbrook. (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016) Section 4.9, Hazardous and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems Jerome E. Paul (December 7, 2016) • Zandra Hughes (November 21, 2017; November 28, 2017; December 5, 2016; emailed comment) • Marie Alyse Henley (December 5, 2016; emailed comment) Asks for details regarding type of injection well, land requirements, and what will be injected. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks about safety regulations that will be put in place for the project and the regulatory body charged with ensuring compliance. Chapter 3, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Inquiries on the project's impacts on air and water quality. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water  Asks about financial liability in the event of property devaluation. Asks for details regarding well construction, performance, and baseline and operational Chapter 3.0, Project Description impacts testing. Expresses concern for impacts related to noise, air quality, earthquakes, increased cancer. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-39 Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 1 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted at Scoping Meeting (oral) (cont.) Form Letter 1 (cont.) Requests information regarding the types, frequency, duration, and reporting of testing/monitoring, including depths of soil tests and identification of contaminants to be tested for, and the party that will be undertaking the testing. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Requests information on construction and maintenance requirements for injection well. Chapter 3.0, Project Description (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016; December, 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Form Letter 2: • [Name Withheld]* (December 20, 2016; emailed comment) • [Name Withheld]* (December 20, 2016; emailed comment) Form Letter 3: • [Name Withheld]* (December 21, 2016; emailed comment) • [Name Withheld]* (December 27, 2016; mailed comment) Form Letter 4: • [Name Withheld]* (No date provided; mailed comment) • [Name Withheld]* (December 7, 2016; submitted at scoping comment (written)) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Requests explanation of how Project could help solve water shortage. (Zandra Hughes, November 21, 2016; December 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) Chapter 2.0, Introduction Chapter 3, Project Description Requests information related to injection. (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016; December, 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks what impacts on environmental resources could be as a result of Project as well as associated risks. (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016; December, 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) All Chapters Requests explanation of what groundwater modeling is and its importance (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016; December, 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks questions related to the scoping process. (Zandra Hughes, November, 21, 2016; December, 5, 2016; Henley December 5, 2016) Chapter 2.0, Introduction  Disagrees with project location in a residential area. Expresses concern relating to noise, air quality, effects on property values, traffic, water quality. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water (Property Values) Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic States West Annex is too small for the MBR and would not allow for enough room to mitigate for noise, light, and odor. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern relating to project's impacts on noise, odor, chemical storage, lighting, property values, and quality of life. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding MBR, Is less concerned with secondary treatment option. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives 2-40 (Property Values) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Asks whether technology has been used elsewhere successfully. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Chapter 3.0, Project Description Requests location of where treatment facilities would be sited. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email Myles Billheimer (June 28, 2017)  Cliff Bixler (June 26, 2017) Expresses support for the project. Teri, Chris, James and Nicolas Chambers (July 22, 2017) Expresses concern about truck and construction noise as well as vibrations and odors. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Asks why project will be completed in a residential neighborhood Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood. Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Deb Dixon (July 22, 2017)  Expresses support for building housing on the West Annex Site. John J. Olejnik, Associate Transportation Attached same comments from previous NOP, dated 12/12/2016 - Recommends Planner, California Department of District work closely with the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Transportation, District 5 (July 20, 2017) (SCCRTC), consider Highway 1 improvements. Emphasizes that an encroachment permit will be required for any State right-of-way work. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic [Name Withheld]* (July 21, 2017) Section 4.1, Aesthetics Requests that if Willowbrook Park location is used, treatment facilities can match or improve neighborhood aesthetics. Asks if mitigation can come in the form of park improvements. Requests that safety, water quality, and traffic be considered in the EIR process. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Bernadette Guimarin (July 19, 2017) Expresses opposition to the siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Sites due to proximity to residential neighborhood. Albert and Gail Huff (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood, light and noise effects, compliance with applicable county and local plans. Zandra Hughes (June 26, 2017) Asks why there was no response to the questions posed in the December 8th, 2016 email and if there will be a chance to ask more questions at the July 12th meeting. Greg Hyver (July 20, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities in Soquel due to their Chapter 3.0, Project Description industrial and urban nature. Recommends Santa Cruz and Watsonville as locations for Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation treatment facilities. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Jan Kampa (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-41  Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration All Chapters (Scoping meeting format) Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation (Opposition) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Gaye Kihorany (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Sites due to proximity to residential neighborhood. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation John Kihorany (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood and traffic concern. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Gary and Seraphina Landgrebe (July 20, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood, recommends other locations (Chanticleer and Santa Cruz WWTP). Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Lester Ma (July 18, 2017) Asks why surface water storage has not been expanded and why stormwater cannot be used for recharge. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Douglas Mitchell (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood and traffic concerns. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic (Opposition) Morris Mitchell (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to siting of any treatment facilities at the West Annex Site due to proximity to residential neighborhood and hazards. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation (Opposition) Jackie Mullarky (July 4, 2017) Expresses support for the project.  Morris Packer (July 20, 2017) Describes commenter's own water conservation efforts; and expresses concern regarding multiple units on the same property with only one water meter.  Expresses concern regarding groundwater contamination. (Opposition) (Opposition) Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Suggests the use of settling ponds to replenish groundwater in addition to conservation Chapter 7.0, Alternatives and rain water capture. Jane Paradise (July 22, 2017) Expresses opposition to the project and its location.  Suggests prioritizing conservation efforts in areas that currently do not conserve enough water.  Expresses concern regarding evaluation of project alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding the lack of a Revised Feasibility Study and the adequacy of Memorandum produced by the District. Expresses concern with alternative sites described in the Revised NOP due to their lack of approval from the District Board.  Chapter 3.0, Project Description  Questions adequacy of public involvement component. Jerome (Jerry) Paul (July 24, 2017) Questions validity of jurisdiction used for the EIR and recommends. Project would affect two water districts and an area larger than Soquel Creek Water District's boundaries. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Chapter 3.0, Project Description States that majority of pipelines are within the Santa Cruz Water Department's jurisdiction. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern regarding the project's impact on the cost of water. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-42  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Jerome (Jerry) Paul (July 24, 2017) (cont.) Fadra Perrin (July 20, 2017) Questions ownership of effluent; may belong to City and SCWD. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern regarding public outreach process. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Recommends implementing a project similar to Lochquifer. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives References Desalination Project and involving both Districts. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding presence of treatment plant and its impacts on aesthetics, noise, health, and quality of life. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends finding a more suitable solution. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Andrew T and JoAnn L Pohorsky (July 20, 2017) Expresses support for the project. Opposes the use of primary sewage treatment at Headquarters-West Annex site; recommends possibly using secondary effluent if it will not create a significant impact. Chapter 3.0, Project Description All Chapters Ken Pomper (June 26, 2017) Recommends considering impacts resulting from seismicity, earthquakes, and tremors in relation to the recharge well(s). Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Ken Pomper (June 26, 2017) Recommends adding a section on 'Safety and Security' as well as on back-up measures in place in the event of project failures in the EIR. Section 4.16, Public Services Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Doug Pringle (July 20, 2017) Describes commenters' willingness to pay more for an option that does not use purified Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water wastewater; cites concerns regarding taste. Mona Salvage (July 22, 2017) Pamela Silkwood (July 12, 2017)  (Cost) States that commenter will switch to using bottled water.  Recommends eliminating West Annex site from project.  Recommends considering alternatives zoned for industrial and commercial uses. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recommends the use of river transfers from Santa Cruz as a superior and more costeffective alternative. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Recognizes need for a new water source due to current overdraft and seawater intrusion issues. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Cites concern regarding structure size and length of time for landscaping to mature to hide facilities at West Annex Site. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Asserts the project is not in compliance with the Santa Cruz County or Soquel Village General Plans. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Describes commenter's letter submission on behalf of Jane Paradise and other Concerned Residents. Describes understanding of the project; recommends locating project away from neighborhoods. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Quality of Life) 2-43  Chapter 3.0, Project Description Chapter 7.0, Alternatives ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Pamela Silkwood (July 12, 2017) (cont.) Expresses concern regarding project being labeled as "advanced water purification facility" and not "a wastewater treatment plant".  Describes industrial nature of project. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Describes scoping requirements under CEQA. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background  Describes inadequacies in Revised NOP; requests additional revisions. Nancy Stucker (July 21, 2017) Ricky Suemori (July 22, 2017) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Describes CEQA Guidelines relating to project applicability with general plans, specific plans, and regional plans; and zoning ordinances. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Describes necessary coordination efforts between lead agencies and planning agencies prior to construction. Chapter 3, Project Description Expresses concerns relating to project impacts on noise. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Supports efforts to combat overdraft and seawater intrusion. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Opposes the use of the West Annex site as a project location; cites industrial nature of AWPF and nearby residential zoning. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Describes presence of contaminants found in secondary or tertiary effluent. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Expresses concern regarding projects' impacts on views, landscaping, and visual character of neighborhood. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Asserts that the presence of the existing office building does not provide grounds for locating a facility on the West Annex site. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern regarding nighttime lighting from project. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Expresses concern regarding air emissions and odors during construction and operations. Section 4.3, Air Quality Expresses concern regarding the use, transport of hazardous materials and their unintentional releases. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Describes zoning conflict relating to the use of the West Annex site. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern regarding noise and ground-borne vibration originating from the AWPF. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding project’s impact on traffic; cites nearby schools, bus stops. Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Recommends the use of an alternate site in lieu of the West Annex Site. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses opposition to the placement of the AWPF at the West Annex site; cites surrounding zoning. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation 2-44  (Support for project objectives)  (Opposition)  (Opposition) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Ricky Suemori (July 22, 2017) (cont.) Ginamarie Tambellini (July 22, 2017) Miguel Velazquez (July 21, 2017) Gabriel Velazquez (July 22, 2017) Expresses concern regarding the use of large amounts of chemicals and their accidental release. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Recommends placing AWPF in an industrial area; cites safety concerns. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Opposes the use of the West Annex site as a project location; recommends the use of more industrial sites; cites zoning conflicts. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses that they are not opposed to the project objectives. Chapter 3, Project Description Opposes the use of the West Annex site; cites nearby residential area; zoning conflicts. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Recommends the use of more industrial sites. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding the projects' impacts on noise, vibration, toxic emissions, soil contamination, hazards, traffic, and light pollution. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Cites that AWPF would not be compatible with surrounding neighborhoods due to size and aesthetics. States that landscaping would take a long time to mature. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Opposes the use of the West Annex site for the project; cites surrounding residential zoning. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Explains that the Chanticleer Site/Soquel Ave and the SC WWTF sites are more suitable. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Recommends the EIR provide metrics for the project, including dimensions of tanks and site renderings etc. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Expresses concern regarding the accidental release of toxins. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Recommends evaluation of the projects' impacts on noise, ground vibrations, lighting, and air emissions in the EIR. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Suggests that potential challenges are associated with the Chanticleer Site and SC WWTF sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-45  (Opposition)  (Opposition)  Expresses concerns relating to the projects' use of hazardous materials. Expresses concern regarding the projects' impact on quality of life as a result of its industrial nature.  (Opposition)  (Quality of Life)  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Email (cont.) Gerardo Velazquez (July 24, 2017) Understands need for project and treated wastewater approach. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Deems the use of the West Annex Site for project as inappropriate; cites nearby residential neighborhood. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concerns regarding the projects' impacts on aesthetic character of neighborhood and on current views; further cites length of time for landscaping to mature. Section 4.1, Aesthetics  (Opposition) Expresses concerns regarding air emissions as a result of construction and operations. Section 4.3, Air Quality Expresses concerns regarding the use and handling of hazardous materials and wastewater. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Expresses concerns regarding the project's impacts on ground vibrations and noise. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern regarding projects' compliance with the County General Plan and Soquel Village Plan. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern regarding accidental releases of hazardous materials as a result of Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology seismicity, construction, or human errors. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Expresses concerns regarding safety especially due to increased traffic.  (Project failures/ human error) Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Recommends the use of the Chanticleer Site and SC WWTF sites for placement of the AWPF.  Correspondence Submitted by Mail Barton (no date) Jan Chaplin (July 17, 2017) N. di Cicco (July 20, 2017) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Asks if there are any studies evaluating the long term risks associated with using wastewater; including any risks for future generations and agriculture. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Asks if non- wastewater alternatives are being considered. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests that project properly adhere to zoning designations; suggests Neary Lagoon as an option for building project. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses opposition to the placement of the project in a residential neighborhood.  Recommends eliminating West Annex site as a potential project option.  Objects the use of the West Annex site for the AWPF; cites the residential neighborhood nearby.  Expresses concern regarding projects' impact on noise and light pollution. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends the project use the other sites under consideration. Chapter 7, Alternatives 2-46 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) Nancy Howells (no date) References the approval of the Aptos Village project despite concerns for adequate water availability for the project.  Expresses concern regarding the impacts of development on our ability to reach long term sustainability by 2040. Chapter 2.0, Introduction and Background Expresses support for the elimination of raw wastewater as a source water option. Chapter 7, Alternatives Questions if all chemicals can be removed with water purification technologies. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water  (Cost) Describes increases in cost of supplying water to customers; points to lack of discussion regarding cost of water supply and suggests keeping the cost of water down. Marcia Noren (no date) Expresses concern regarding projects' industrial nature and subsequent ability to industrialize existing neighborhood. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern regarding the use of hazardous materials in an earthquake zone. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials  Questions safety of West Annex site. Dianna Nunns (July 22, 2017) Describes project’s incompatibility with the Soquel Village Plan. All Chapters Expresses concerns regarding projects' impact on noise. Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends that the District find a more suitable location. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Expresses concern regarding the construction of projects prior to the publication of findings of the Regional Water Board. Chapter 2, Introduction References piping project at the Loch Lomond Reservoir/ Newell Creek Dam to be used for water transfers; recommends the District consider the Lochquifer project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Opposes the use of the West Annex site for the Project. Expresses concern regarding the projects' energy consumption. Section 4.6, Energy Demand and Conservation Expresses concern regarding the limited size of the West Annex site, overshadowing of neighboring lots, project impacts on noise, contaminants, and wildlife. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.4, Biological Resources  Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Lot Size, Shadows) Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Recommends that the West Annex site be used for residences or office space. Asserts the current District office would likely have to be relocated if the West Annex site were used for the project. Recommends the District consider a more industrial site for the project. Expresses concern regarding the awarding of grants and timeframes for project construction; questions why the District is planning for the demolition of the West Annex building in July, 2017 prior to design approval. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  2-47  Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Recognizes water shortage and overdraft issues facing the County and the need for some type of project to address said issues. Project Description Opposes the use of the West Annex Site; cites nearby residential zoning. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Describes existence of alternative sites that should be used for the project. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail Lora C. Parkhurst (July 18, 2017) Kim Saxton (Santa Cruz Montessori) (July 3, 2017)  (Opposition) Expresses opposition to the use of the Willowbrook Park site for an injection and monitoring well. Cites proximity of school to Willowbrook Park site.  (Opposition) Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.16, Public Services Requests that EIR be produced during the school year to be able to assess the potential impact of project on Montessori school. Expresses concerns regarding project's impacts on traffic, safety, and noise especially as they relate to the nearby school.  Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Requests information on the amount of noise and vibration that will be produced by the Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration recharge well. Expresses concern relating to nearby classrooms that could be affected. Wayne Stanton (no date) Expresses concern regarding construction impacts on student drop-off areas. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Asks if pipeline connecting to the recharge well will be installed. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Asks if any portions of Willowbrook Drive will be inaccessible during construction. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Disagrees with projects' changes to zoning regulations. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation  Opposes project location in a residential area. Expresses concern relating to the projects' impacts on noise, traffic, hazardous materials, Section 4.3, Air Quality air quality. Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Recommends placing AWPF in a non-residential area. Wayne Stanton (July 19, 2017) Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  Expresses opposition to project.  Expresses concern regarding efficacy of project. Recommends building a Desalination Plant; cites long-term cost savings. Expresses opposition to locating project on West Annex site, references cost of landscaping. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 2-48 Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  (Cost savings)  ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Mail (cont.) Wayne Stanton (July 12, 2017)  Expresses opposition to project. Recommends the use of a Desalination Plant; cites financial incentives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives  (Cost savings) Correspondence Submitted by Court Reporter (July 12, 2017) Donna Clem Marilyn Garrett Requests a different format meeting with all speakers at the front of the room or to be able to hear overall response from the audience.  Expresses opposition to the treated wastewater option.  Does not like the meeting format where everyone cannot hear everyone else speaking.  Proposes that agricultural groundwater pumping be stopped.  Opposes the injection of treated wastewater into the aquifer.  Marcia Noren Opposes West Annex location due to industrial nature in a residential neighborhood, storage and use of hazardous materials, and aesthetics of buildings. [Name Withheld]* Requests transparency for the environmental review so project can qualify for inclusion in Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin plan, particularly accessibility of public comment. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation  Requests that alternative solutions be looked at such as recharge on parking lots. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Requests review of contaminated railroad bed soils for conveyance route, archeologists and Native American observers on site during excavation, and health effects of treated wastewater be studied. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Supports placement of treatment facility in industrial/commercial area, putting proposal to Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation a vote. [Name Withheld]* Asks how construction traffic will be dealt with. Lowell Webb Asks if the "loquifer" - the Loch Lomond river aquifer - solution has been analyzed as well Chapter 7.0, Alternatives as dams. Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Correspondence Submitted by Public Comment Form (July 12, 2017) Loren Gustafson  Supports concept. Opposes treatment facility due to aesthetics, construction noise and traffic. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic (Property Values) Concerned about project effect on property values. [Name Withheld]* Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Requests list of all regulatory agencies involved. Chapter 3, Project Description Requests that alternatives be emphasized. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives 2-49 ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Public Comment Form (July 12, 2017) (cont.) [Name Withheld]* (cont.) Requests that public and agency comments be published and not summarized. Chapter 2, Introduction Requests that project be put to a public vote.  [Name Withheld]* Requests that comments from previous scoping meeting be made available on the website  [Name Withheld]* Opposes the Soquel/Capitola Rd. site on basis of noise, traffic, hazardous waste, air quality, and zoning concerns Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Form Letter 5: Describes need for project; opposes project location at West Annex Site. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Expresses concern regarding zoning conflicts at West Annex site. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Describes AWPF components and industrial character of facility. Chapter 3.0, Project Description Section 4.1, Aesthetics Recommends eliminating West Annex site and finding more suitable alternatives. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Describes neighborhood values relating to quality of life, health, and environment. All Chapters • Vivian Fenner-Evans (December 11, 2016; emailed comment) • Suzanne Dowling (July 22, 2017; emailed comment) • Julie Miller-Soros (July 22, 2017; emailed comment) • Linda Mitchell (July 22, 2017; emailed comment) • Virginia Sajan (July 22, 2017, emailed comment) Form Letter 6: • Patricia & Pete Biocini (July 21, 2017, emailed comment) • Dave Hack (July 17, 2017, emailed comment) • Toni Hack (July 17, 2017) • Teresa Parodi (July 16, 2017, emailed comment) • Jessica Scolaro (July 15, 2017, emailed comment) • Bill and Pamela Avellino (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Steve & Karen Belick (July 20, 2017, mailed comment) • John Biocini (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Patricia Biocini (July 21, 2017, mailed comment) • Cynthia Smith-Brockman (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR  (Neighborhood values, Quality of Life)  Expresses opposition to locating the AWPF on the West Annex site. Expresses concern regarding accidental toxic releases due to project failures, earthquakes, flooding; use, handling, storage and processing of hazardous materials Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Expresses concern regarding projects' impacts on water quality and supply, noise, lighting, and air. Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.3, Air Quality Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources-Surface Water Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Expresses concern relating to water quality (including contaminants of emerging concern), noise, ground vibration, traffic and circulation, aesthetics (including landscaping). Section 4.1, Aesthetics Section 4.101, Hydrology Resources-Groundwater Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration Section 4.15, Transportation and Traffic Asserts that project is not in compliance with: General Plan, Soquel Village Plan, and Sustainable Santa Cruz County Final Plan. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation 2-50 (Opposition)  (Project failures) ESA / 160164 June 2018 2. Introduction and Background TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF SCOPING COMMENTS Commenter Summary of Comment Considered in the EIR Beyond EIR Scope NOP 2 – Scoping Comments Correspondence Submitted by Public Comment Form (July 12, 2017) Form Letter 6: (cont.) Expresses concerns relating to quality of life and health. • H. Brockman (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Laurie Burns (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Michael Burns (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Jan Chaplin (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Joanne Duffield (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Ian Kelly & C.W. Fastenau (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Anson Lee (July 19, 2017, mailed comment) • Venus Lee (July 19, 2017, mailed comment) • Jane Paradise (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Janos Radvanyi (July 20, 2017, mailed comment) • Wayne Stanton (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Kristen Summerill (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) • Ryan Summerrill (July 10, 2017, mailed comment) All Chapters Recommends finding alternate location. Chapter 7.0, Alternatives Form Letter 7: Describes CEQA guidelines and requirements for AB 52 and SB 18; recommends Cultural Resources Assessments. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources Form Letter 8: Expresses opposition to the West Annex site due to incompatible zoning. Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation Expresses concern about transparency in relation to choosing the sites for water treatment. Chapter 3.0, Project Description • Native American Heritage Commission (June 28, 2017, emailed comment) • Native American Heritage Commission (July 28, mailed comment) • Gaye Kihorany (July 12, 2017, oral comment; July 12, written comment) Form Letter 9: • [Name Withheld]* (July 12, 2017, oral comment; July 12, 2017, written comment) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Recommends raising the price of water so people value it more. Recommends a moratorium on building. (John Morris, July 12, 2017, oral comment) 2-51 (Quality of Life)   ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 3 Project Description 3.1 Introduction The Soquel Creek Water District (District) is evaluating an advanced purified groundwater replenishment project, Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project), to supplement natural recharge of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin (Basin or Groundwater Basin) with purified water. The Project would help increase the sustainability of the District’s groundwater sources, which it currently relies on for 100 percent of its water supply. The Project would reduce the degree of existing overdraft conditions in the local groundwater basin, protect against further seawater intrusion of the groundwater basin, and promote beneficial reuse by reducing discharge of treated wastewater to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Monterey Bay). The Project would provide sufficient capacity to offset the groundwater supply impacts attributable to District pumping. This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) considers an advanced purification system capable of treating secondary effluent to meet State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW) recycled water standards for groundwater replenishment via recharge. The Project components under consideration include: tertiary and advanced water purification facilities; pump stations and pipelines for the conveyance of source water, purified water, and brine; and recharge and monitoring wells. The Project also includes the potential use of purified water for landscape irrigation application and redistribution of groundwater pumping from District production wells. The proposed Project is being evaluated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to identify the physical and environmental impacts of the Project, which are analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. The District is the CEQA Lead Agency. 3.2 Background The District is a County Water District formed under Section 30000 et. seq. of the California Water Code, providing potable drinking water and groundwater resource management for a portion of Santa Cruz County, California. The District’s service area includes portions of the city of Capitola and the unincorporated communities of Aptos, La Selva Beach, Opal Cliffs, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, Seacliff Beach and Soquel. The District serves approximately 15,800 connections, of which 94 percent are residential, and a population of approximately 40,400 (Carollo, 2017). The District currently obtains 100 percent of its water supply from aquifers in the Santa Cruz Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Mid-County Groundwater Basin. These aquifers are located within two geologic formations that underlie the District’s service area, the Purisima Formation and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer. The Purisima Formation provides the majority of the District’s water needs. The District’s groundwater supply is currently in a state of critical overdraft, meaning more water has been extracted from the aquifers than the natural rate of recharge via rainfall, resulting in depressed groundwater levels. The District has declared a Groundwater Emergency (ongoing since 2014). 1 The Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA) commissioned a study of the salinity of groundwater aquifers along the Monterey Bay coastline in the Project vicinity. The study did not detect seawater intrusion on shore, but indicates that it is occurring along the entire coastline of the District’s service area immediately offshore. Moreover, the results of the study demonstrate that the extent of elevated salinity levels among coastal aquifers is substantial in this area. The study represents a moment in time, and does not indicate the rate at which the interface between saltwater and freshwater is advancing landward through the underground aquifers. However, the study’s findings regarding proximity of the interface to the coast emphasizes the need for actions that would facilitate the recovery, maintenance, and protection of groundwater levels to prevent further onshore intrusion (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018). For the above reasons, the District has determined a supplemental water supply is required to restore groundwater levels basin-wide, and aid in meeting the mandates of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) that basin groundwater use be sustainable by 2040. Based on current hydrologic evaluations and the desired level of risk/uncertainty the District plans to limit its net average groundwater pumping to no more than 2,300 acre-feet per year (afy) 2 to contribute to basin recovery based on the proportion of its consumptive use from the basin. In order to do so, the District would need to secure approximately 1,500 afy of supplemental supply (District, 2016). An estimated 3,000 afy of supplemental supply could be required to address basin-wide groundwater overdraft. Plans to achieve basin-wide sustainability are currently being evaluated and refined through an independent effort under the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA). In November 2017, the District completed a Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study (Carollo, 2017) for recharging the local groundwater aquifers with advanced purified water. The goal of this work was to identify potentially feasible engineering solutions for securing supplemental water supply through the indirect use of purified water to recharge the local groundwater basin. Building upon the Study’s recommendations, additional discussions with stakeholders and the District’s consultant team, as well as input from the public, the District has identified three potential sites for the Project water treatment facilities, five potential sites (among four properties) for recharge wells, and several options for conveyance pipeline alignments, each of which is discussed in this Chapter. 1 2 Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Soquel Creek Water District Declaring a Groundwater Emergency (Resolution No. 14-22), passed and adopted June 17, 2014. The District Board set the desired level of risk and uncertainty at 70 percent of annual consumption of District customers, and based its pumping goal on maintaining its proportion of consumptive use of the groundwater basin. This is represented in estimates for the offshore groundwater flow required to prevent seawater intrusion and for the reduction in natural recharge due to climate change; both of which are based on the 70th percentile of their respective models’ simulations (HydroMetrics WRI, 2015). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description The proposed Project’s treatment facilities described in Section 3.5, Proposed Project Components, would be capable of producing 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd), approximately 1,500 afy, of purified water – the estimated volume required to offset the portion of the basin’s cumulative groundwater overdraft attributable to District groundwater pumping. However, the conveyance infrastructure would be sized to accommodate the potential for future expansion of the Project’s treatment system (if desired at a later time) and to convey up to approximately 2.7 mgd, or approximately 3,000 afy, of purified water. 3.3 Project Objectives The overall goal of the Project is to recharge the local groundwater basin with 1,500 afy of purified water for indirect potable reuse (IPR) and thereby improve its reliability as a water supply source. The specific objectives of the Project are to: • Replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under the SGMA. • Develop an affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant supplemental water source that contributes to the diversification of the District’s water supply portfolio and enhances resiliency. • Continue to provide District customers with a high-quality and safe water supply. • Provide additional environmental benefits, such as to surface and marine waters. 3.4 Project Location The Project includes facilities in portions of the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and in the Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos communities of unincorporated Santa Cruz County, California. As presented on Figure 3-1, potential Project components could extend to the Main Street-Soquel Drive intersection to the north, Cabrillo College to the east, Schwan Lake Park and the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) to the south, and California Street near Santa Cruz High School to the west. The Project treatment system could include components at the SC WWTF, at District-owned property near the District’s offices at the Capitola Avenue-Soquel Drive intersection (Headquarters-West Annex Site), and/or at property on the southwest corner of the Soquel Avenue-Chanticleer Avenue intersection (Chanticleer Site). Pipeline routes would generally follow road or railroad rights-of-way. Potential recharge well locations include two sites at Cabrillo College (Cabrillo College North Recharge Well and Cabrillo College South Recharge Well), one site at Twin Lakes Church (Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well), one site on District property near Willowbrook Lane (Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well), and one site on District property near the Monterey Avenue-Kennedy Drive intersection (Monterey Avenue Recharge Well). The Project setting is predominantly urban, characterized by mostly residential and commercial development, interspersed with patches of more naturalistic undeveloped areas primarily along major drainages and riparian corridors. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description 3.5 Proposed Project Components The Project could include the following: • Advanced Water Treatment Facility or Facilities, which could consist of a tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF in conjunction with an Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) at the Chanticleer Site or at the Headquarters-West Annex Site; or a standalone AWPF at SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or Headquarters-West Annex Site. • Conveyance System, which would include pump stations, process tanks, and pipelines to convey secondary or tertiary effluent, brine, and purified water between the SC WWTF, the AWPF or facilities (if not co-located with SC WWTF), and the recharge wells. • Recharge and Monitoring Wells, five potential sites on four properties are being considered for development of up to three recharge wells: 1) one site on District-owned property near the Monterey Avenue-Kennedy Drive intersection (Monterey Avenue Recharge Well); 2) one site on District-owned property near Willowbrook Lane (Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well); 3) one site on Twin Lakes Church-owned property near Cabrillo College (Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well), and; 4) two sites on Cabrillo College-owned property (Cabrillo College North Recharge Well and Cabrillo College South Recharge Well). In response to public scoping comments requesting the District consider multiple Project sites (see Chapter 2, Introduction), and to allow flexibility in responding to the interests of local jurisdictions, technical uncertainties, and environmental and economic considerations, the District is considering one or more options for each of these required Project components. Accordingly, this approach to analysis represents the most comprehensive and reasonably conservative analysis feasible, and is intended to provide the public with a full understanding of the range of options under consideration and their potential environmental effects. Based upon information obtained through the environmental analysis, additional engineering feasibility considerations, and continued community engagement, the District would select a final Project configuration (consisting of a single AWPF treatment concept, a single pipeline alignment, and up to 3 recharge wells), from the components evaluated in this EIR, prior to development of final engineering design. Details of the key Project components under consideration (source water, treatment, conveyance, and recharge and monitoring wells) are presented in the following sections and in Tables 3-1 through 3-4. The Project also includes an educational program related to water use, reuse, treatment, and conservation. The program would be operated out of the proposed AWPF, or incorporated into an existing District facility or the SC WWTF. 3.5.1 Source Water and Treatment The source water for the Project would be treated effluent from the SC WWTF that has undergone a secondary-level of treatment. 3 An overview of potential purification treatment technologies and a discussion of potential system configurations and facility locations is presented below. 3 Secondary-treated effluent has undergone a two-phase treatment process (primary and secondary). The primary phase, or first stage of treatment, involves the separation of solids and a portion of the suspended sediments from the effluent. The secondary phase involves the use of chemical and biological measures to further remove dissolved organic matter, nutrients, and other contaminants such as suspended sediments. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) # Recharge Well (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Å Ä 17 Soquel DR CLIFF 41ST AVE N DR Monterey Avenue TE ON M Y RE K LN BRO O KENNEDY DR # VE Twin Lakes Church COLLEG ## # E DR Cabrillo College South A R AV SI IS C AN Cabrillo College North E Aptos RR 41ST AVE Capitola TOPAZ ST R R SCC R CABRILLO FR SCC CAPITOLA RD 38TH AVE LOTM A 30TH AVE KENNEDY DR WILL OW ST CAPIT OLA A VE ER AV E TICLE 16TH AVE 17TH AVE AV E 7T H 1 GRACE ST Schwan Lagoon PO AD TOL POR Å Ä 101 £ ¤ 47TH AVE CALIFORNIA ST SCC R B I Willowbrook Lane # F DR T BROMMER ST NZO CLARES ST R WHA HS RD MA GROSS RD D LV ST _ ^ C BEA ST E E AV NT Santa Cruz WWTF ST D 2N RSID FRO Neary Lagoon Park RIVE T LL S ST 3rd SAN LO RE O LA _ ^ AUTO PLAZA DR CAPITOLA RD AY DW OA T AN S OCE PBE CAM AVE LAUREL ST P IC PACIF BR IT ICK ST 1 R FREDE ST WIN Å Ä BA Y DAR Santa Cruz CA WATER ST _ ^ CHAN E QU SO EL QU RD SO ARF WH N 1 HeadquartersWest Annex Site 49TH AVE Å Ä VE LA PORTER ST Chanticleer Site ROSEDALE AVE Q UEL DR SO 9 PARK AVE Å Ä O RT LA DR SANTA CLARA COUNTY Glenwood 17 « ¬ 9 « ¬ Felton SANTA CRUZ COUNTY R Live Oak «1 ¬ Santa Cruz «1 ¬ ¬ « 152 Watsonville Area of Detail 0 0.5 Miles SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 MONTEREY COUNTY ¬1 « Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-1 Project Overview 3. Project Description Treatment Technology The District would utilize advanced purification technology to treat the source water to Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) standards, which would allow for groundwater replenishment via recharge wells, as well for surface irrigation. Title 22, Article 5.2, Groundwater Replenishment – Subsurface Application, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) sets forth the treatment requirements for IPR projects involving groundwater replenishment. In accordance with the Title 22 IPR regulations, the Project would utilize ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF) to yield a tertiary-level of treatment, followed by reverse osmosis (RO) and an ultraviolet light-based advanced oxidation process (UV AOP) to further purify the water to meet drinking water requirements and remove potential constituents of emerging concern (CECs). 4 This level of purification would exceed recycled water requirements for surface irrigation application, as set forth in CCR Title 22, Article 3, Uses of Recycled Water. Pursuant to 22 CCR Section 60304, recycled water must undergo a disinfected tertiary level of treatment prior to use for surface irrigation, but need not undergo the additional RO and oxidation treatment process steps required for IPR. Backwash and cleaning wastes from the treatment system would be discharged into the sewer collection system. Brine from the treatment system would be piped back to the SC WWTF, blended with the treated effluent, and discharged via the existing outfall located about 1 mile offshore into the Monterey Bay. The operation of treatment and brine disposal systems are described further in Section 3.7.1, Facilities Operations and Maintenance, below. Treatment System Configurations and Locations The District is considering three potential locations (options) for the required Project treatment system – the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, and Headquarters-West Annex Site. Among those sites, the District is considering a number of treatment system configurations: 1. A new tertiary treatment system 5 at the SC WWTF, coupled with an AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or 2. A new tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF, coupled with an AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or 3. A new AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF; or 4. A new AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF; or 5. A new AWPF at the SC WWTF for advanced purification of SC WWTF secondary effluent. 4 5 Constituents of Emerging Concern (CECs) are defined as chemicals in personal care products, pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, antimicrobials; industrial, agricultural, and household chemicals; hormones; food additives; transformation products, inorganic constituents; and nanomaterials which may have potential environmental or public health impacts. Tertiary-level treatment is more advanced than secondary. The tertiary treatment process involves the use of additional chemicals, and can also include filtration technologies. Tertiary-level treatment removes additional solids and microorganisms, and provides greater disinfection, relative to primary- or secondary-level treatment. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Figure 3-2 presents a schematic of these treatment system configurations; while Table 3-1 displays the treatment processes that would occur at each location under each configuration. Table 3-2 lists the facility requirements at each location for each of the treatment configurations. TABLE 3-1 OVERVIEW OF TREATMENT CONFIGURATION OPTIONS AT EACH POTENTIAL LOCATION SC WWTF Chanticleer Site Tertiary Treatment System (TTS) AWPF Treatment Configuration 1   Treatment Configuration 2   AWPF AWPF w/out TTS AWPF AWPF w/out TTS   Treatment Configuration 3a  Treatment Configuration 4 a Treatment Configuration 5 Headquarters-West Annex   a Secondary effluent pump station and equalization tank would be required at SC WWTF. Develop Tertiary Treatment System at SC WWTF The District is considering two treatment options for the SC WWTF site: 1) a tertiary membrane filtration system, or; (2) an AWPF (described below). Each option would require an agreement with the City of Santa Cruz. The Tertiary Treatment System would treat secondary effluent from the SC WWTF to tertiary effluent quality for conveyance from the SC WWTF to the onsite or offsite AWPF. Major components of the tertiary treatment system would include a secondary lift station, EQ tank, MF/UF system, tertiary UV disinfection (only for portion of flow serving SC WWTF), chemical feed and storage facilities, and an electrical/controls room, as shown in Table 3-2. The system would be located within a developed area of the existing SC WWTF site and encompass an area of approximately 6,000 square feet (0.14 acre). Accommodating these improvements would require modifications to the layout of existing facilities, including partial or full demolition of the on-site tertiary treatment system, which provides recycled water for in-plant use and planned recycled water uses by the City, such as potential use for La Barranca Park irrigation and at its truck fill station. If a new tertiary treatment system were selected for the SC WWTF, it would be designed to produce sufficient quantities of tertiary effluent to replace the amount currently produced onsite for the SC WWTF’s above-described existing and potential future uses, plus that required to meet the District’s groundwater replenishment source water target. The tertiary effluent would be conveyed to the Headquarters-West Annex Site or Chanticleer Site for advanced purification via a pump station and a dedicated pipeline, and would also be available to the City for the existing and planned uses described previously. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHANTICLEER SITE OR MID COUNTYANNEX LOCATION HEADQUARTERS-WEST SITE (To be Determined) CONFIGURATIONS 3&4 ALT 2 CONFIGURATIONS 1&2 ALT 1 SC WWTF RECHARGE WELLS SECONDARY EFFLUENT EFFLUENT PUMP STATION SECONDARY EFFLUENT 55,000 GAL LIFT STATION EQ TANK Cabrillo College/ Twin Lakes Church TERTIARY SOURCE WATER LINE PURIFIED WATER LINE Willowbrook MF RO UV-AOP BRINE LINE PURIFIED WATER PUMP STATION Monterey OCEAN OUTFALL SECONDARY EFFLUENT EFFLUENT PUMP STATION Willowbrook SECONDARY SOURCE WATER LINE SECONDARY EFFLUENT 55,000 GAL LIFT STATION EQ TANK PURIFIED WATER LINE MF RO Monterey UV-AOP WATER PUMP STATION BRINE LINE Cabrillo College/ Twin Lakes Church OCEAN OUTFALL CONFIGURATION 5 ALT 3 SECONDARY EFFLUENT Willowbrook PURIFIED WATER LINE SECONDARY EFFLUENT 55,000 GAL LIFT STATION EQ TANK OCEAN OUTFALL RO MF PURIFIED WATER LINE PURIFIED WATER LINE Monterey PURIFIED WATER PUMP STATION Cabrillo College/ Twin Lakes Church UV-AOP MF=Micro Filtration SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell, 2017 RO= Reverse Osmosis UV-AOP=Ultraviolet light/Advanced Oxidation EQ Tank= 1 Equalization Tank Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-2 Options for Treatment Trains 3. Project Description TABLE 3-2 COMPONENTS FOR TREATMENT CONFIGURATIONSa Configuration SC WWTF Chanticleer Site Headquarters-West Annex Site Tertiary Treatment System AWPF (with Tertiary Treatment at SC WWTF) No Project Components • Secondary effluent pump station • Process building (25-30 ft. in height) to house major facility equipment including: • EQ tank (24 ft. in height) • UF or MF system • Tertiary ultraviolet (UV disinfection system) • Tertiary effluent pump station • Electrical and control room 1 These components would be sited on an unenclosed concrete pad. The UF/MF and UV AOP systems would be covered by a canopy. 2 Total Footprint: 15,000 ft - RO system UV AOP system • Operation building/lab (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) and maintenance/storage (to be covered by a canopy) • Educational program area (signage and walk-through area) • Electrical and instrumentation equipment building (13 ft. in height) • Purified water & brine pump stations (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) • RO process tank to be used during cleaning of the RO units (10 ft. in height) • RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters (may be located outdoors) • Paved access road/vehicle parking areas • Exterior nighttime security lighting • 1,600 ft. long, 10-foot-tall iron/chain-link fence with privacy slats around the site’s perimeter Total Footprint: 60,000 ft2 Same as for Configuration 1 No Project Components AWPF (with Tertiary Treatment at SC WWTF) • Process building (25-30 ft. in height) to house major facility equipment including: - RO system UV AOP system Transfer pumps Electrical and instrumentation equipment room Operations center Purified water & brine pump stations • Lab space and maintenance/storage (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) • Educational program area (signage and walk-through area) • Chemical Storage Building (20 ft. in height) 2 • RO process tank to be used during cleaning of the RO units and RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters pad (10 ft. in height) • RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters (may be located outdoors) • Covered back hoe and dump truck parking (approx. 16 ft. in height), and spoils yard • Exterior nighttime security lighting • Paved access/vehicle parking areas • 900 ft. long, 10-foot-tall concrete wall along southern and eastern (partial) boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site Total Footprint: 43,000 ft2 New Facilities related to Project AWPF (without Tertiary Treatment at SC WWTF) • Secondary effluent pump station • Process building (25-30 ft. in height) to house major facility equipment including: • EQ tank (24 ft. height) • Secondary effluent lift station • Electrical and instrumentation 3 - No Project Components UF or MF system RO system UV AOP system These components would be sited on an unenclosed concrete pad. • Operation building/lab (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) and maintenance/storage (to be covered by a canopy) Total Footprint: 1,650 ft2 • Educational program area (signage and walk-through area) • Electrical and instrumentation equipment building (13 ft. in height) • Purified water & brine pump stations (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) • RO process tank to be used during cleaning of the RO units (10 ft. in height) • RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters (may be located outdoors) • Paved access road/vehicle parking areas • Exterior nighttime security lighting • 1,600 ft. long, 10-foot-tall iron/chain-link fence with privacy slats around the site’s perimeter Total Footprint: 65,000 ft2 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-2 (CONTINUED) COMPONENTS FOR TREATMENT CONFIGURATIONSA Configuration SC WWTF Same as for Configuration 3 Chanticleer Site No Project Components Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF (without Tertiary Treatment at SC WWTF) • Process building (25-30 ft. in height) to house major facility equipment including: - UF or MF system RO system UV AOP system Electrical and instrumentation equipment room Operations center Purified water and brine pump stations • Lab space and maintenance storage (to be enclosed, 20 ft. in height) • Educational program area (signage and walk-through area) 4 • Chemical Storage Building (20 ft. in height) • RO process tank to be used during cleaning of the RO units (10 ft. in height) • RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters (may be located outdoors) • Covered back hoe and dump truck parking (approx. 16 ft. in height), and spoils yard • Paved access/vehicle parking areas • Exterior nighttime security lighting • 900 ft. long, 10-foot-tall concrete block wall along southern and eastern (partial) boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site Total Footprint: 35,000 ft2 AWPF No Project Components No Project Components • Secondary effluent pump station • EQ tank • UF or MF system • RO process tank and RO cartridge filters • Pumps 5 • Chemical feed equipment • Electrical and instrumentation • UV AOP system • Purified water pump station • Educational program area (signage and walk-through area) The above components would be housed within a single, two-story building (25-30 ft. in height). Total Footprint: 20,000 ft2 NOTE: a Structure dimensions and overall footprint values are approximate, and may be modified somewhat during final design. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Advanced Water Purification Facility at SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or Headquarters-West Annex Site Another treatment option under consideration is an AWPF located at the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or Headquarters-West Annex Site capable of treating the SC WWTF secondary-treated effluent to meet drinking water and potable reuse standards for subsurface application as established by the SWRCB DDW. This treatment process requires multiple filtration and treatment steps. Major components of the AWPF would include a process building, chemical storage and feed systems, storage tanks, on-site conveyance infrastructure and an operations building with lab space as shown in Table 3-2. The footprint of the AWPF would be approximately 36,000-45,000 square feet (0.83-1.03 acres) at the Headquarters-West Annex Site, approximately 60,000-65,000 square feet (1.38-1.49 acres) at the Chanticleer Site, and approximately 20,000 square feet (0.46 acres) at the SC WWTF. 6 The AWPF at SC WWTF would be housed in a twostory building due to space limitations. The approximate limits of potential disturbance at the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, and Headquarters-West Annex Site are shown on Figures 3-3, 3-4, 3-5, 3-6, and 3-7. As shown on Figure 3-7, the District’s existing corporation yard at the Headquarters – West Annex Site could be used for Project components. If the Headquarters – West Annex Site were selected for the AWPF, for purposes of security, and to lessen visual and noise impacts beyond the site during construction and operation, the District would install an approximately 10foot-tall, 900-foot-long, concrete (e.g., block or pile) wall along the site’s southern and eastern (partial) boundaries, as shown in Figure 3-7. If the Chanticleer Avenue site were selected for the AWPF, the District would install an approximately 10-foot-tall, 1,600-foot-long iron/chain-link fence with privacy slats and two lockable entrance gates. 3.5.2 Conveyance System The Project would require the installation of new infrastructure, including pumps and pipelines, for the conveyance of secondary or tertiary effluent, brine, and purified water. The District is currently considering three major conveyance components. These include: (1) a pump station, process tank, and dedicated pipeline for conveyance of secondary or tertiary effluent from the SC WWTF to the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification; (2) a pump station, process tank, and a dedicated pipeline (co-located with the SC WWTF secondary or tertiary effluent line) for conveyance of brine from the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site to SC WWTF. (If an AWPF were constructed at the SC WWTF then no brine pump station or brine pipeline would be needed); and (3) a purified water pump station and dedicated purified water pipelines from the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or Headquarters-West Annex Site to recharge wells and potential connection points for future irrigation customer connections. 6 The lower limits of the footprint ranges for the Chanticleer and Headquarters-West Annex sites account for a Tertiary Treatment Facility at the SC WWTF, while the upper limits do not. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Secondary Effluent Pump Station 0 40 Feet SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-3 Secondary Effluent Pump Station Option at SC WWTF The second floor of this building would include ultrafiltration (UF), reverse osmosis (RO) ultraviolet (UV), and advanced oxidation process (AOP) faciltiies, as well as RO transfer pumps and cartridge filters. First Floor Secondary Effluent Lift Station Electrical/ Controls Room Pump Station Equalization Tank Process Tank CIP and Chemical Storage 0 40 Feet SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-4 AWPF at SC WWTF Option Electrical/Controls Room Demo CIP and Chemical Storage Teritiary UV Effluent Pump Station UF PADS Secondary Effluent Lift Station Equalization Tank (24’ Height) UF Process Building 0 40 Feet SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-5 Tertiary Treatment Sy stem at SC WWTF Option H W Y 1 Feet 0 0 25 50 100 100 Chanticleer Avenue Site Plan Feet Soquel Creek Groundwater Replenishment Project SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 April 2018 Soquel, California Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 3-6 A WPF at Chanticleer Site e A v e n u G a r y e l q u S o :DOO e i v D r /DE 6SDFH DQG 0DLQWHQDQFH 6WRUDJH 'LVWULFW +HDGTXDUWHUV ( E x is t in g) 3DUNLQJ (QWUDQFH 3XUL¿ HG :DWHU 3XPSV DQG &DUWULGJH )LOWHUV (YHUJUHHQ 7UHH 7\S :DWHU 7DQN ¶ +HLJKW &KHPLFDO 6WRUDJH ([LW 2QO\ 6WUXFWXUH ,QFOXGLQJ 3XUL¿ FDWLRQ )LOWUDWLRQ 89 $23 (OHFWULFDO &HQWHU 2SV &HQWHU 3XUL¿ HG :DWHU 3XPS 6WDWLRQ *DWH 5RDG ([LVWLQJ 3* ( 6WDWLRQ &RYHUHG %DFN +RH DQG 'XPS 7UXFN 3DUNLQJ 6SRLOV 'U\ 2XW (YHUJUHHQ 6KUXE DQG *URXQGFRYHU 6FUHHQ C a p i t o l a A v e n u e Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Draft Concept 1 April 2018 Soquel Creek Groundwater Replenishment Project Soquel, California Figure 3-7 A WPF at H eadquarters- West A nnex Site 3. Project Description A description of the conveyance system components and locations under consideration is provided in the following paragraphs and presented on Figure 3-1. Pump stations would be housed among the treatment facilities at the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, and/or HeadquartersWest Annex Site. The pumps would have a power rating of approximately 15 horse power (HP) at 1,700 revolutions per minute (RPM). The District is considering several potential pipeline routes, the final selection of which would be determined based upon treatment approach and alignment feasibility (e.g., sufficient space within rights-of-way, potential conflicts with existing utilities, environmental impacts). The routes under consideration generally follow disturbed or existing developed road and railroad rights-of-way. As shown in Table 3-3, the pipelines range in size from 8 to 16 inches in diameter. Pipes would be made of either plastic or metal material. TABLE 3-3 PIPELINE ALIGNMENT OPTIONS Treatment Configuration 1, 3 Treatment Description associated with Pipeline Options A new tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF, coupled with an AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or Dedicated secondary- or tertiary pipeline from the SC WWTF to the AWPF A new tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF, coupled with an AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or 8-inch diameter Maximum Distance: 4.4 miles long (to Chanticleer Site) Max. Distance: 4.4 miles Max. Distance: (to Chanticleer Site) 4.6 miles long (AWPF at Chanticleer Site) (Same route as the A new AWPF at the SC WWTF for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF. 14-inch diameter secondary/tertiary effluent pipeline to send the brine from the AWPF back to the SC WWTF) 16-inch diameter 8-inch diameter Max. Distance: 8.8 miles long (to HeadquartersWest Annex Site) Max. Distance: 8.8 miles Max. Distance: 2.4 miles long (AWPF at long (to HeadquartersHeadquarters-West West Annex Site) Annex Site) (Same route as the 14-inch diameter secondary/tertiary effluent pipeline to send the brine from the AWPF back to the SC WWTF) A new AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF 5 Dedicated Purified Water Pipelines to the Recharge Wells 16-inch diameter A new AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF 2, 4 Dedicated Brine Main from the AWPF to the SC WWTF No pipeline (AWPF would be on same footprint as Tertiary) No pipeline (AWPF would be on same footprint as Tertiary) 14-inch diameter 11.2 miles long (AWPF at SC WWTF) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent Conveyance from SC WWTF to the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site If the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site were selected for AWPF construction, then the District would construct a new effluent lift station, EQ tank, pump station, and pipeline to convey a consistent flow of secondary or tertiary effluent from the SC WWTF to the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification. The diameter of the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description pipe would be approximately 16 inches. The effluent lift station, EQ tank, and pump station would be located on a paved area within the existing SC WWTF property. Brine Conveyance from the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site to SC WWTF If the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site were selected for AWPF construction, then the District would also construct a new brine pump station and a dedicated pipeline to convey brine from the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site’s AWPF to the SC WWTF. The brine conveyance pipeline would be approximately 8 inches in diameter and follow the same alignment as the secondary or tertiary effluent pipeline described above. The brine pump station would be located on the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site. Purified Water Pump Station and Dedicated Purified Water Pipelines The District would construct a new purified water pump station and dedicated pipeline to convey purified water from the selected AWPF site (i.e., Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, or SC WWTF) to the recharge well sites described in Section 3.5.3, Recharge and Monitoring Wells, below. The pipelines would also include potential connection points for future supply to irrigation customers. The purified water pipeline would be approximately 14 inches in diameter. The purified water pump station would be located at the selected AWPF site. 3.5.3 Recharge and Monitoring Wells Following treatment, purified water would be conveyed from the selected AWPF site to new well sites for recharge into the Purisima Formation (aquifer recharge). The District is considering five potential sites on four properties for up to three recharge wells. These are: 1) one site on Districtowned property near the Monterey Avenue-Kennedy Drive intersection (Monterey Avenue Recharge Well); 2) one site on District-owned property near Willowbrook Lane (Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well); 3) one site on Twin Lakes Church-owned property near Cabrillo College (Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well), and; 4) two sites on Cabrillo College-owned property (Cabrillo College North Recharge Well and Cabrillo College South Recharge Well). Table 3-4 provides a summary of facilities and footprints for each prospective well site. Figures 3-8a and 3-8b show the potential limits of disturbance associated with well installation at the respective sites. Well facilities would be located on a concrete pad, unenclosed, rise to a height of approximately six feet, and would be collectively capable of replenishing approximately 1.3 mgd (1,500 afy) of purified water into the groundwater basin. Water would be delivered to the recharge well(s) at low pressure (approximately15 pounds per square inch [psi]). With the exception of the Monterey Avenue site, which has an existing tank, each site would have a new in-ground equalization basin with a 25,000-gallon storage capacity. In addition, each well site would have a submersible pump for flushing and discharging well backwash water into the equalization tank, a backwash discharge pump to discharge backwash water from the equalization tank to the nearby sanitary sewer, and an air gap to ensure separation between backwash and recharge water. The pumps for back flushing recharge wells would have a power rating from 70 to 100 HP at 1,800 to 3,600 RPM, respectively, and would be fully submersed in water at depth of approximately 100 feet below ground level. The backwash tank pumps would have power rating of Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Recharge Well and Backwash Pump Willow Motor Control Center b rook L n Potential Recharg e Well Sites Air Gap Air Gap Air Gap Backwash Discharge Pump Equalization Tank Air Gap Equalization Tank Motor Control Center Recharge Well and Backwash Pump 0 160 Feet M o n t erey A v en ue R ec h a rge W el l S it e M o e nt re y e A v 0 160 Feet W il l o w b ro o k L a n e R ec h a rge W el l S it e Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 Figure 3-8 a Recharg e Well Conceptual Site Plans Equalization Tank Motor Control Center Potential Recharg e Well Sites CABRILLO COLLEGE NORTH RECHARGE WELL SITE Recharge Well and Backwash Pump Air Gap Air Gap Parking eg e Dr Recharge Well and Backwash Pump Air Gap Air Gap Cab rillo Coll Equalization Tank (Buried Tanks) SD Catch Basin (Existing) Backwash Discharge Pump Site Fence Motor Control Center o C ol Equalization Tank ill Recharge Well and Backwash Pump le g e Dr CABRILLO COLLEGE SOUTH RECHARGE WELL SITE Air Gap C ab r Air Gap 1 Motor Control Center 0 160 M cG reg or Dr Feet C a b ril l o C o l l ege N o rt h R ec h a rge W el l S it e & C a b ril l o C o l l ege S o ut h R ec h a rge W el l S it e 0 100 Feet T w in L a k es C h urc h R ec h a rge W el l S it e Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: Brown and Caldwell; SqCWD, 2017 Figure 3-8 b Recharg e Well Conceptual Site Plans 3. Project Description approximately 15 HP at 1,700 RMP and would be fully submersed in water within a concrete tank at a depth of 8 to 12 feet below ground level. Two monitoring wells would be located at or near each recharge well site. TABLE 3-4 COMPONENTS FOR WELL SITE OPTIONS Recharge Well Locationa,b Willowbrook Lane Facilities Monterey Avenue Cabrillo College North Cabrillo College South Twin Lakes Church • Recharge well (low pressure) • Backwash discharge pump • Backwash pump • Motor control center • Backwash equalization basin/tank • Two monitoring wells (in vicinity of the recharge well) Construction footprint (ft2) 6,950 4,150 4,850 3,850 3,850 Permanent footprint (ft2) 6,950 3,850 4,850 2,250 2,850 NOTE: a The number of wells could range from 1 to 3. b Well siting locations and the number of wells are not dependent on treatment configuration 3.6 Project Construction An overview of the anticipated construction process is provided below. Included in this discussion are descriptions of site preparation and staging, construction approach and methods, and schedule. Construction of the various Project components would proceed in parallel; that is, the Project implementation would not occur in phases. 3.6.1 Site Access Existing public roadways would provide the primary access routes to the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, Recharge and Monitoring Well Sites, pipeline construction areas, and staging areas. Highway 1 would be a major throughway for site access. Major arterials would include Capitola Road, Soquel Drive, Broadway, Bay Avenue, Park Avenue, Bay Street, and Cabrillo College Drive. The Project may require temporary lane closures for roads along the pipeline alignments in order to allow for pipeline installation. 3.6.2 Staging and Laydown Areas Construction equipment and materials would be stored within the construction work areas; an additional offsite laydown area would need to be identified by the District if the SC WWTF were selected for the tertiary treatment system or AWPF. If the tertiary treatment system were selected, then a laydown of up to 15,000 square feet would be needed, either at the SC WWTF, an off-site location, or some combination thereof. While a specific off-site staging area has not been identified, it would generally consist of a paved or otherwise disturbed upland site near the SC WWTF, require no tree trimming or removal, and no other substantial disturbance to soil or Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description vegetation. If the tertiary treatment system were selected for construction at the SC WWTF, the AWPF would not be built at the SC WWTF. Staging and laydown for the AWPF and pump station(s) would require up to 20,000 square feet, regardless of the site selected (i.e., SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or Headquarters-West Annex Site), and regardless of source water for the Chanticleer Site and Headquarters-West Annex Site (i.e., secondary or tertiary). Staging and laydown requirements for each of the recharge and monitoring well sites would vary between approximately 2,250 and 6,950 square feet and would occur on site. Staging and laydown for pipeline construction equipment and materials (e.g., vehicles, pipes, lubricants, fuels) would occur primarily on paved areas for open trench installations. For trenchless installations, the staging area would include the pits where the tunneling equipment would be lowered below ground to commence tunneling and pits where the equipment would be retrieved from below ground upon completion of tunneling, referred to generally as launching and receiving pits. The staging area for completed open trench installations may also be used for trenchless installations or for pipes installed on bridges. The staging areas would be occupied for the duration of the construction period for the associated pipeline segment. Staging areas would be relocated as necessary to follow the pipeline construction as it progresses along the pipeline route. Improvements to lands for staging beyond the pipeline construction corridor (e.g., laying dirt or gravel) could be required if roadway widths are too narrow to fully accommodate pipeline staging and construction activities. Such expanded staging areas would be limited to the footprints of existing disturbed sites, and require no trimming or removal of trees greater than 6 inches in diameter. Upon completion of construction, these areas would be restored to their approximate pre-construction conditions (e.g., topography and vegetation). Table 3-5 summarizes the staging and laydown area locations for the Project options under consideration. 3.6.3 Preparation and Clearing Construction workers would clear and prepare the construction work areas in stages prior to and as construction progresses. Construction work areas at the treatment and recharge well locations would be fenced with privacy or other shielding materials. If selected, the Chanticleer Site would also require the demolition of an existing abandoned residential structure. Clearing and grubbing would occur at the Chanticleer Site or the Headquarters-West Annex Site, along some pipeline corridors, and at the recharge and monitoring well sites on an as-needed basis. At these locations, before construction starts, the contractor would clear and grade portions of the Project area, removing vegetation and debris, as necessary, to provide a level surface for equipment access, materials staging, and construction activities. Some trees would be removed within the staging and construction areas at the Headquarters-West Annex, Chanticleer, and/or Twin Lakes Recharge Well site. Tree removal could include trees that line the northern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site, trees at the southwest corner of the Chanticleer Site, and/or trees along the eastern edge of the Twin Lakes Church parking lot. Tree removal would not be required at the sites of the potential Monterey Avenue Recharge Well, the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well, the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, or the SC WWTF. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-5 POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREAS Project Components Location AWPF AWPF, purified water pump station SC WWTF and/or nearby off-site location AWPF, brine pump station, purified water pump station Chanticleer Site AWPF, brine pump station, purified water pump station Headquarters-West Annex Site Tertiary Treatment System Source water pump station and tertiary treatment system SC WWTF and/or nearby off-site location Recharge and Monitoring Wells Cabrillo College Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites Willowbrook Lane Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site Twin Lakes Church Twin Lakes Church and/or Cabrillo College Monterey Avenue Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and/or nearby off-site location Pipelinesa Source water conveyance pipeline from SC WWTF to the Chanticleer Site; brine conveyance pipeline from Chanticleer Site to SC WWTF Adjacent to trench; 20 feet wide for entire open cut pipeline alignment length (4.4 miles). Staging area for trenchless and bridge installations is included within this space. Source water conveyance pipeline from the SC WWTF to the Headquarters-West Annex Site; brine conveyance pipeline from Headquarters-West Annex Site to SC WWTF Adjacent to trench; 20 feet wide for entire open cut pipeline alignment length (8.8 miles). Staging area for trenchless and bridge installations is included within this space. Purified water pipelines to the Recharge Wells Adjacent to trench; 20 feet wide for entire open cut pipeline alignment length (11.2 miles from SC WWTF, 4.6 miles from Chanticleer Site, 2.4 miles from Headquarters-West Annex Site). Staging area for trenchless and bridge installations is included within this space. NOTE: a The pipeline lengths assume the longest pipeline routes would be used and thus are considered to be conservative estimates. Upon completion of construction, the undeveloped portions of these sites that are disturbed during construction would be returned to their approximate pre-construction conditions, including topography and vegetation. All construction waste would be off-hauled to the Sanitary Landfill in Marina, Buena Vista landfill in Watsonville, or the Transfer Station in Ben Lomond. 3.6.4 Construction Activities, Construction Equipment, and Construction Workforce This section presents the various methods, equipment, and daily workforce that would be used for Project construction. A summary of earthwork, construction area, construction equipment types, number of workers, and construction duration for each primary Project component is presented in Table 3-6. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-6 CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Disturbance Area Project Site/Component Depth of Excavation/ Quantity of Material Import and Export Construction Area (Permanent) Construction Area (Temporary) Estimated Construction Equipmentf (Quantity) Workersf (Daily) Estimated Construction Duration SC WWTF Secondary treated water conveyance • Secondary lift station • EQ tank • Source water pump station • Excess spoils: 270 Cubic Yards (CY) • Imported fill: None 1,800 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. • • • • • • • • Skip loader (1) Back hoe/track hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Crane (1) Scissor lift (1) Wiring pulling machine (1) Concrete pumping equipment (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) 10 (average); 14 (Peak) Up to 12 months Tertiary treatment system • Excess spoils: 270 CY • Imported fill: None • Excavation depth: None 15,000 sq. ft. 15,000 sq. ft. • • • • • • • • • Skip loader (1) Back hoe/track hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Crane (1) Scissor lift (1) Generators (1) Concrete delivery truck (1) Wiring pulling machine (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) 12 (average); 16 (Peak) Up to 18 months AWPF • Excess spoils: 1390 CY • Imported Fill: 10 CY • Excavation depth: 18 in. 20,000 sq. ft. 20,000 sq. ft. • • • • • • • • • • Skip loader (1) Back hoe/track hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Crane (1) Scissor lift (1) Generator (1) Concrete delivery truck (1) Wiring pulling machine (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) Continuous flight auger rig (1) 15 (average); 20 (Peak) Up to 36 months Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-6 (CONTINUED) CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Disturbance Area Project Site/Component Depth of Excavation/ Quantity of Material Import and Export Construction Area (Permanent) Construction Area (Temporary) Estimated Construction Equipmentf (Quantity) Workersf (Daily) Estimated Construction Duration Chanticleer Sitea AWPF (with no tertiary treatment facility at SC WWTF) • Excess spoils: 3,340 CY • Imported fill: 30 CY • Excavation depth: 18 in. 65,000 sq. ft. 65,000 sq. ft. • • • • • • • • • Concrete delivery truck (1) Skip loader (1) Back hoe/track hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Crane (1) Scissor lift (1) Wiring pulling machine (1) Generator (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) 12 (average), 16 (peak) Up to 24 months 50,000 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. • • • • • • • • • • Concrete delivery truck (1) Skip loader (1) Back hoe/track hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Crane (1) Scissor lift (1) Wiring pulling machine (1) Generator (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) Auger (1) 12 (average), 16 (peak) Up to 24 months (2.5 months for wall construction) See Table 3-4 for details See Table 3-4 for details • • • • • • • • F6Concrete delivery truck (1) Skip loader (1) Well drilling machine (1) Well casing driver (1) Back hoe (1) Fork lift (1) Generator (1) Concrete/industrial saw (1) 15 average (5 per site), 18 peak (6 per site) 540 days (180 days per site) Headquarters-West Annex Sitea AWPF (with no tertiary treatment facility at SC WWTF) • Excess spoils: 1,390 CY • Imported fill: 10 CY • Excavation depth: 18 in. Recharge and Monitoring Wells (up to 3 total) See Table 3-4 for details Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR • Excess spoils: 270 CY (90 CY for each site) • Imported fill: None • Excavation/drilling depth: Approx. 900 ft. below ground surface 3-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-6 (CONTINUED) CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT Disturbance Area Project Site/Component Depth of Excavation/ Quantity of Material Import and Export Construction Area (Permanent) Construction Area (Temporary) Estimated Construction Equipmentf (Quantity) Workersf (Daily) Estimated Construction Duration Pipelinesb,c,d,e,f a) Excess spoils: 84,000 CY AWPF at Chanticleer Site Imported fill: 105,000 CY a) Feed water conveyance Excavation depthd: 10.0 ft. pipeline from the SC WWTF to the Chanticleer b) Excess spoils: 32,000 CY Site; brine conveyance Imported fill: 39,000 CY pipeline from Chanticleer Excavation depth: 10.0 ft. Site to SC WWTF b) Purified water pipelines to the recharge wells (from Chanticleer Site) a) 26.67 acrese b) 27.88 • Concrete/industrial saws (2) • Boom truck/small crane (for site preparation) (2) • Tractors (2) • Loaders (2) • Dumpers (2) • Pumps (2) • Forklift (2) • Sweepers/scrubbers (2) • Skid steer loader (2) a) 14 (average); 20 (peak) b) 14 (average); 20 (peak) a) Approximately 16-24 monthsf b) Approximately 16-20 month a) Excess spoils: 164,000 CY Imported fill: 206,000 CY Excavation depth: 10.0 ft. b) Excess spoils: 17,000 CY Imported fill: 21,000 CY Excavation depth: 10.0 ft. a) 53.33 acres e b) 14.55 • • • • • • a) 14 (average); 20 (peak) b) 14 (average); 20 (peak) a) Approximately 24-36 months b) Approximately 6-8-month This assumes one construction crew per each segment 14 (average); 20 (peak) Approximately 15-24 monthsf AWPF at HeadquartersWest Annex a) Feed water conveyance pipeline from the SC WWTF to the Headquarters-West Annex Site; brine conveyance pipeline from Headquarters-West Annex Site to SC WWTF b) Purified water pipelines to the recharge wells (from Headquarters-West Annex Site) • • • • • • • • • AWPF at SC WWTF Purified water pipelines to the recharge wells (from SC WWTF) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Excess spoils: 78,000 CY Imported fill: 96,000 CY Excavation depth: 10.0 ft. 67.88 acres e 3-28 Water truck (2) Air compressors (2) Flatbed trucks (2) Back hoes (2) Excavators (2) Pipe cutting and welding equipment (2) Haul trucks for spoils transport (2) Trucks for materials delivery including concrete delivery truck (2) Compaction equipment including a plate compactor (2) Generators Baker tanks (2) Pickup trucks (2) Skip loader (2) Pavers and rollers (2) Asphalt/paver truck (4) ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-6 (CONTINUED) CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT NOTES: a This analysis assumes the full AWPF would be built. If the new AWPF included only RO + UV AOP with tertiary at SC WWTF, quantities and disturbance areas would be slightly smaller. b The pipeline lengths assume the longest pipeline routes would be used as well as the widest corridor of 50 feet and thus are considered to be conservative estimates. c The estimated disturbance area for the pipeline alignment are temporary and assumed to be along the entire pipeline alignment, including the laydown area which may be up to 20-ft wide. d Excavation depths may be greater at locations along pipeline alignments where there are utility crossings. e The temporary disturbance area for pipeline installation consists of an up to 50-foot-wide corridor along the pipeline route within which construction activities would occur. The majority of the temporary disturbance area would consist of paved or otherwise disturbed existing road and/or railroad rights-of-way. f Pipeline equipment and worker estimates for two pipeline crews. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Construction Activities In general, construction of the pump stations, advanced water purification facilities, and purified water recharge and monitoring wells would involve site clearing and grading; cutting, laying, and welding pipelines and pipe connections; connecting electrical power; placing rebar; pouring concrete footings for foundations, tanks, and other support equipment; constructing buildings and concrete containment areas; assembling and installing major treatment process components; installing piping, storage tanks, and electrical equipment; testing and commissioning facilities; and finishing work such as erecting enclosures, painting, flooring, installing doors and, windows, fine grading, paving or gravel, landscaping, and fencing the perimeter of the site. Pumps and Treatment Facilities In addition to the construction activities listed above, construction of the pumps and treatment facilities would include site excavation, concrete work for foundations; interior mechanical piping; installation of permanent equipment such as pumps and treatment process equipment; construction of access driveways; and installing material storage and metering facilities. No clearing or grubbing is expected for a SC WWTF secondary or tertiary effluent pump station, as it would be constructed on a pre-developed/ disturbed area. If treatment facilities were located at the Chanticleer or Headquarters–West Annex Sites, then clearing and grubbing would be required, along with demolition of an existing building at the Chanticleer Site. Due to the anticipated softness of the soil underneath the SC WWTF, piles would be needed for construction of the AWPF. Piles would be installed by a flight augur rig, approximately one per every 25 square feet, or approximately 270 piles total. The piles would be driven to a depth of approximately 70 feet each. If treatment facilities were placed at the SC WWTF then demolition of the existing tertiary treatment facility would be required. As noted in Section 3.5.1, Source Water and Treatment, if the Headquarters-West Annex site were selected for the AWPF, an approximately 10-foot-tall, 900-foot-long, concrete (or similar) wall would be constructed along the site’s southern and eastern (partial) boundaries, as shown in Figure 3-7. In addition to providing security, the wall would be designed to reduce visual and noise impacts beyond the site, including during construction. Accordingly, the wall would be among the first Project components constructed at the site. Following site clearing and grubbing, pier foundation holes would be drilled, pier foundations and grade beams would be poured, posts would be installed, and the wall would be constructed. Wall construction would require approximately 2.5 months to complete. Recharge and Monitoring Wells Construction of the recharge and monitoring wells would require well drilling, and installing well pumps and electrical panels. During recharge well development 7, motor-driven pumps are typically run at various speeds above and below the design capacity to clear the well head of silt 7 Well development occurs after the wells have been drilled, and is the process of optimizing the water quality and flow into the well. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description and sediment material that could clog the well over time. The water use and disposal requirements for well development are addressed in Section 3.6.6, Construction Water, below. Pipeline Installation The District has committed to requiring its contractors to follow American Water Works Association (AWWA) and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards in construction of Project pipelines. The AWWA standards specify the acceptable materials, sizes, placement, and encasement requirements for pipelines. These standards also establish the appropriate separation distances from other existing underground utilities such as underground electrical lines. The AREMA standards provide guidance for construction and operation of rail systems, including for the placement of underground utilities, such as water pipelines, within rail alignments. The majority of the pipelines would be installed using conventional cut and cover construction techniques via trenches within existing roadways. However, all streams, rivers, drainages, railroad crossings, and highways would be crossed using trenchless construction techniques. Stream and river crossings at bridges may be traversed by hanging the pipeline on the bridge or placing it in the bridge’s annular space. Trenchless technologies could require wider corridors at entry and exit pits. The same would generally be true for culvert crossings; however, trenching may be used where the culvert elevation and depth of cover are sufficient to allow the pipelines to cross over the culvert. Construction techniques for pipelines are described below in Table 3-7. The width of the disturbance corridor for pipeline construction would vary from 30 to 50 feet, depending on the size of the pipe being installed. Trench excavation would range from 3-9 feet wide and would typically be no more than 10 feet deep. Open-Trench Construction For pipeline segments to be installed using open-trench methods, the construction sequence would include: 1. clearing and grubbing the ground surface along the pipeline alignments; 2. excavating the trench; 3. preparing and installing pipeline sections; 4. installing vaults, manhole risers, manifolds, and other pipeline components; 5. backfilling the trench with non-expansive fills; 6. restoring preconstruction contours; and 7. revegetating or paving the pipeline alignments, as appropriate. A conventional backhoe, excavator, or other mechanized equipment would be used to excavate trenches. Trench width would range from 4 to 9 feet; however, vaults, manhole risers, and other pipeline components could require wider excavations. Work crews would install trench boxes or shoring or would lay back and bench the slopes to stabilize the pipeline trenches and prevent the walls from collapsing during construction. After excavating the trenches, the contractor would Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-7 SUMMARY OF PIPELINE ROUTE OPTION CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Pipeline Segment (includes brine pipeline)a Construction Method SC WWTF to Broadway • Bay Street to California Street to Laurel Street • Open Cut Installationb • Railroad Crossing, SC WWTF to Bay Street • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Railroad Crossing, California Street and Bay Street • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Culvert Crossing, Laurel Street and California Street • Trenchless (HDD) • Railroad Crossing, Laurel Street and Chestnut Street • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Laurel Street Bridge • Trenchless (HDD) or within bridge OR • Bay Street to Beach Street to Front Street to 3rd Street to Riverside Avenue • Open Cut Installationb • Railroad Crossing, SC WWTF to Bay Street • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Railroad Crossing, West Cliff Drive at Pacific Avenue • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Riverside Avenue Bridge • Trenchless (HDD) or within bridgec Broadway to Soquel Avenue • Broadway and Frederick Street to Soquel Avenue • Open Cut Installationb Soquel Avenue to Highway 1 Crossing • Soquel to Auto Plaza Drive to Wharf Road • Open Cut Installationb • Soquel Avenue (between La Fonda Avenue and Capitola Road Extension) • Trenchless (Jack and Bore or HDD) OR • Soquel Avenue to 41st Avenue to Clares Street to Wharf Road • Open Cut Installationb • Soquel Avenue (between La Fonda Ave and Capitola Road Extension • Trenchless (Jack and Bore or HDD) OR • Capitola Road to 49th Avenue to Wharf Road • Open Cut Installationb • Capitola Road Arana Gulch Crossing, between Soquel Avenue and Harborview Court • Trenchless (Jack and Bore or HDD) OR • Capitola Road to 7th Avenue to Railroad to 47th Avenue to 49th Avenue to Wharf Road • Open Cut Installationb • Capitola Road Arana Gulch Crossing, between Soquel Avenue and Harborview Court • Trenchless (Jack and Bore or HDD) • Capitola Road Arana Gulch Crossing, between Harborview Court and Capitola Road Extension • Trenchless (Jack and Bore or HDD) Highway 1 Crossing to AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site • Wharf Road to Porter Street to Soquel Drive to AWPF at HeadquartersWest Annex Site • Open Cut Installationb • Highway 1 Crossing • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Soquel-Bargetto Bridge • Bridge Installation OR • Wharf Road to Porter Street to Main Street to Walnut Avenue to Soquel Avenue to AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site • Open Cut Installationb • Highway 1 Crossing • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) • Porter Street Bridge • Bridge Installation Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description TABLE 3-7 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS Pipeline Segment (includes brine pipeline)a Construction Task AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site to Recharge Wells • AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site to Recharge wells • Open Cut Installationd Trench Width: 3 ft. Trench Depth 10 ft. • Highway 1 Crossing • Trenchless (Jack and Bore) NOTES: HDD= Horizontal Directional Drilling a The pipeline segments presented represent options, a subset of which would be selected during final design. The Project would not involve construction of all pipeline segment options evaluated. b Maximum Trench Width: 9 ft., Maximum Trench Depth: 9 ft. c Piping would be installed within the open space in the Riverside Avenue bridge if there is physical space and pending structural and seismic evaluation. If installation within the bridge is not possible, the Riverside Avenue bridge crossing would be installed using trenchless technology. d This pipeline only carries purified water to the recharge wells (no brine or treated effluent), hence the smaller width. line the trench with pipe bedding; that is, sand or other appropriate material shaped to support the pipeline. Construction workers would then place pipe sections (and pipeline components, where applicable) into the trench, join the sections together as trenching proceeded, and then backfill the trench. Most pipeline segments would be between 7 and 9 feet deep. Open-trench construction would generally proceed at a rate of about 100 linear feet (LF) per day. Steel plates would be placed over trenches to maintain access to private driveways. Some pipeline installation would require construction in existing roadways and could result in temporary lane closures or detours. The locations for which potential open-trench installations could occur are presented in Table 3-7. Bridge Crossings For creek or river crossing where there is an existing bridge, the preferred method of installation for conveyance piping would be to either hang piping from the bridge, or install piping in the bridge annular space. The pipeline segments for which bridge installations could occur are presented in Table 3-7. Installation work would be conducted from top of bridge; no in-water work (e.g., construction from barges, temporary structures) would be anticipated. Each bridge crossing could require approximately 10 to 30 construction work days. Trenchless Technologies Where it is not feasible or desirable to perform open-cut trenching, or install pipes on bridges, workers would use trenchless tunneling methods such as jack-and-bore, drill-and-burst, horizontal directional drilling, or microtunneling. This work would involve pipeline installation work at depths as low as 60 feet below ground surface. The locations where trenchless installations could occur, along with type of trenchless technology, are presented in Table 3-7. As the table shows, trenchless methods of pipeline installation could be required at up to 9 locations. A description of the trenchless technologies that could be used for pipeline installation at these locations is presented in the sections that follow. Each trenchless crossing could require approximately 10 to 30 construction work days. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Jack-and-Bore and Microtunneling Methods The jack-and-bore and microtunneling methods entail excavating an entry pit and an egress pit at either end of the pipe segment. A horizontal auger is used to drill a hole, and a hydraulic jack is used to push a casing through the hole to the egress pit. As the boring proceeds, a steel casing is jacked into the hole and pipe is installed in the casing. Drill-and-Burst Method The drill-and-burst method involves drilling a small pilot hole at the desired depth through a substrate, and then pulling increasingly larger reamers through the pilot hole until the hole reaches the desired diameter. Horizontal Directional Drilling Horizontal directional drilling requires the excavation of a pit on either end of the pipe alignment. A surface-launched drilling rig is used to drill a small horizontal boring at the desired depth between the two pits. The boring is filled with drilling fluid and enlarged by a back reamer or hole opener to the required diameter. The pipeline is then pulled into position through the boring. Entry and receiving pits range in size depending on the length of the crossing, but typically have dimensions of approximately 40 feet by 25 feet for an entry pit and 20 feet by 20 feet for a receiving pit. Horizontal directional drilling fluids would vary depending on soil conditions around the trenchless installation. Typically, drilling fluids would consist of bentonite clay and a polymer. Table 3-6, above, summarizes excess spoils, construction area, construction workers, and construction duration for each primary Project component. Note that the maximum trench width and depth are provided to allow flexibility to account for the potential that the source water conveyance pipeline and brine pipeline could be installed in the same trench, either side-by-side or arranged vertically with one pipeline on top of the other. Construction Equipment Equipment required for construction of the pumps, wells, and treatment facilities would include skip loaders for site grading, backhoe or trackhoe for excavation of foundations and pipe trenches, an auger for drilling pile foundation holes, fork lifts for unloading and distributing construction materials, cranes for hoisting of construction material and setting of large permanent equipment such as pumps, and generators for each site to run hand-powered tools. In addition, concrete pumping equipment and a concrete delivery truck would be used for the placement of concrete. Construction equipment is summarized in Table 3-6. Pumps and Treatment Facilities Equipment for the pumps and treatment facilities would also include scissor lifts for the installation of aboveground pipe and electrical inside of the buildings, and wire pulling machines for pulling electrical wire through electrical duct banks. If the AWPF were built at the SC WWTF, then a continuous flight auger rig would also be required for drilling foundation piles. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Recharge and Monitoring Wells In addition to the construction equipment listed above, a well-drilling rig and flatbed trailer for well-casing, mud handling equipment, and air compressor would also be required for the construction of the recharge and monitoring wells. A test pump would be required for well development and testing, tanks needed to hold soil cuttings and development water, and temporary piping for development and testing water. Pipeline Installation Construction equipment for pipeline installation would include flatbed trucks, backhoes, excavators, pipe cutting and welding equipment, haul trucks for spoils transport, trucks for materials delivery, compaction equipment, Baker tanks, pickup trucks, pipe connection tools, generators, air compressors, cranes, drill rigs, skip loaders, and a generator for hand powered tools. Construction Workforce Pumps, Wells, and Treatment Facilities Construction Pumps and Treatment Facilities The construction of a secondary effluent pump station at the SC WWTF would require an average of 10 (and up to 14) construction workers per day. If the Tertiary Treatment Facility (which would include the tertiary pump station) were built at the SC WWTF, then an average of 12 (and up to 16) construction workers per day would be required. However, if the AWPF were constructed at SC WWTF, the required workforce would be an average of 15 (and up to 20) workers per day. The contractor would be responsible for finding off-site parking for workers who would then be shuttled to the SC WWTF each day. A small number of vehicles would be allowed to park on site to deliver construction equipment. If the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site were chosen for the AWPF siting, then an average of 12 (and up to 16) construction workers per day would be needed. Construction workers parking at the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site would mostly be accommodated on site; however, some street parking could also be required. Recharge and Monitoring Wells Construction of the recharge and monitoring wells would require an average of 5 (and up to 6) construction workers for each site. Construction of the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well would require use of public parking on nearby residential streets, unless permission for use of nearby private parking facilities, such as that of the Shore Life Community Church, were granted by the owner. Parking for construction workers for the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well and the Twin Lakes Recharge Well would be accommodated on-site; however, the former (Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well) would also require use of public parking on nearby residential streets. The Cabrillo College Recharge Wells sites would provide on-site parking for workers, or if additional parking were required to maintain parking needs for students and faculty, an adjacent field (Multipurpose Field) could be used. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Pipeline Installation This document conservatively assumes two crews would be working simultaneously on pipeline installation. The average daily crew size would be approximately 7 workers (14 in total), and the maximum daily crew size would be approximately 10 workers (20 in total). Parking for construction workers would be provided within the staging areas along the pipeline alignments. 3.6.5 Excavation, Stockpiling of Soils, and Spoils Disposal Earthwork and Construction Debris Removal Excavation and construction activities would generate excess soil, rock, construction material, and debris. Depth of excavation would vary by Project component and location, as shown in Table 3-6. Although suitable topsoil and subsoils excavated during construction would be used to backfill excavations and restore work areas to the extent possible, under the most conservative configuration (i.e., tertiary at SC WWTF and AWPF at Chanticleer Site), the Project would generate an estimated 183,600 cubic yards (CY) of excess material (the volume could be less if a different Project configuration were selected): • 163,300 CY from excavation for the source water conveyance pipelines from SC WWTF to AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site • 16,200 CY from excavation of the purified water pipelines connecting the Headquarters-West Annex Site to the recharge well sites • 3,700 CY from demolition, excavation, and construction debris generated from tertiary treatment system at SC WWTF and AWPF at Headquarters-West Annex Site • 400 CY from excavation and construction at three recharge wells No native soil would be used for pipe bedding. Excess soil not reused in construction would require off-haul for disposal at the Sanitary Landfill in Marina, Buena Vista landfill in Watsonville, or the Transfer Station in Ben Lomond. Spoils hauling, placement, and off-haul would occur throughout the construction schedule. The average capacity of haul trucks is assumed to be 10 CY. If needed, temporary stockpiling of soil would occur within the Project footprint and/or staging areas. Site Restoration Following construction activities, all construction debris and waste would be removed from the site and disposed as described previously. Similarly, all construction equipment and materials would be removed. Disturbed areas beyond the Project footprint would be returned to their approximate pre-construction conditions. Restoration of these areas would generally include minor grading; reuse of scarified material (topsoil/mulch) removed during construction; repaving or patching sidewalks and streets; hydroseeding with a native seed mix appropriate for the area; and planting non-invasive, drought-tolerant groundcover, shrubs, and trees. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description 3.6.6 Construction Water The anticipated construction water demands for the various Project options under consideration are presented in Table 3-8. As the table indicates, dust abatement and equipment testing would account for most of the water required for treatment and conveyance facility construction. To the extent available, recycled water could be used for dust abatement. Well drilling requires a source of water for drilling fluid. Well construction would require water prior to gravel packing. Among the water requirements presented in the table, only the latter (well head development) could be recycled for other uses. In addition to these facility-specific water requirements, if groundwater or precipitation were to accumulate in the work areas of other sites (e.g., open construction trenches, excavation sites or driving/receiving pits), dewatering of the affected area would be required. Dewatering typically involves pumping water out of the inundated area and, following appropriate on-site treatment, discharging the water into a nearby sewer or over land. Water utilized or produced during construction and dewatering would be disposed of in accordance with applicable local and state laws and regulations. Drilling fluid, fluids displaced during well construction (gravel packing), sealing, and initial development water would be stored in tanks on site during construction and then disposed of off-site at an authorized disposal facility. Other development water would be discharged under the District’s Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Order WQ 2014-0194-DWQ). As needed, onsite treatment, such as a baker tank or settling basin, would be used to ensure turbidity is within the allowable discharge levels. Depending upon turbidity levels, pumping development and pump testing water may be able to be discharged without treatment. Dechlorination of flushing and disinfection fluids would be required before discharging to the storm drain. 3.6.7 Construction Schedule The Project facilities would be built over approximately 36 months, with a potential construction period of spring of 2019 through spring of 2022. Approximate duration of construction activities would vary by Project component as follows: • Source water pump station – 12 months; • Treatment facility – 36 months; • Pipelines – 24 months; • Recharge wells – 18 months. The majority of construction activities would occur during normal working hours; weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. However, installation of the recharge wells would require 24-hour construction for a period of approximately 2-3 weeks for well drilling, construction, and development. Accordingly, recharge well staging and construction during well installation would require nighttime lighting for safety and security. This EIR conservatively assumes concurrent construction of the treatment facilities (one crew), pipelines (up to two crews), and one recharge well (one crew). Additional details of the estimated Project construction durations, by Project component, are presented in Table 3-6. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-37 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Feed Water Conveyance Pipeline from SC WWTF to Headquarters-West Annex Site, Brine Conveyance Pipeline from Headquarters-West Annex Site to SC WWTF Purified Water Pipelines to the Recharge Wells (from SC WWTF) Purified Water Pipelines to the Recharge Wells (from Chanticleer Site) Purified Water Pipelines to the Recharge Wells (from Headquarters- West Annex Site) Feed Water Conveyance Pipeline from SC WWTF to Chanticleer Site, Brine Conveyance Pipeline from Chanticleer Site to SC WWTF Recharge Well (Typical of each site) SC WWTF AWPF (UF-ROUV AOP) + Purified Water Pump Station Headquarters-West Annex/Chanticleer AWPF (UF-RO-UV AOP) SC WWTF Facilities: Secondary Effluent Lift Station + EQ Tank + UF + Source Water Pump Station 900 1,500 1,500 1,700 2,400 300 304,700 604,800 471,100 192,700 100,700 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,413,400 578,100 302,100 N/A 18,800 16,500 26,300 26,300 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77,500 N/A 77,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 77,500 N/A 77,500 77,500 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SC WWTF Facilities: Secondary Effluent Lift Station + EQ Tank + Source Water Pump Station (All Units are in Gallons) Headquarters-West Annex AWPF/Chanticleer (RO-UV AOP) TABLE 3-8 CONSTRUCTION WATER DEMAND Activity Hydrostatic Pipe Testing Pipe Flushinga Chem Tank Leak Testing Pump Testing Equipment Hydraulic Testing EQ Tank Leak Testing 55,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 280,000 3,200,000 640,000 3,200,000 4,800,000 28,800 62,300 123,800 136,100 43,000 12,300 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,800,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Subtotal 413,400 3,297,800 735,500 3,305,600 4,906,200 1,829,100 367,000 728,600 2,020,600 813,800 415,100 Misc. water usage (20% non-dust abatement demands) 26,700 19,600 19,100 21,100 21,200 360,100 60,900 121,000 376,900 154,200 80,600 Total 440,100 3,317,300 754,600 3,326,700 4,927,400 2,189,200 427,900 849,600 2,397,500 968,000 495,700 Dust Abatement Well Development NOTE: a The volume of water required for pipe flushing is assumed to be 3 times the pipe volume. Only purified water pipelines are required to be flushed. SOURCE: Brown & Caldwell Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-38 ESA / 160164 May 2018 3. Project Description 3.7 Operations and Maintenance The proposed Project is considered a Groundwater Replenishment Reuse Project (GRRP). As defined by the California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 60301.390, a GRRP is “a project involving the planned use of recycled municipal wastewater that is operated for the purpose of replenishing a groundwater basin designated in the Water Quality Control Plan for use as a source of municipal and domestic water supply.” The regulations governing GRRPs set forth specific requirements for operations, monitoring, and reporting (CCR Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3, Water Recycling Criteria). The frequency and effort required for these activities varies by Project component. In general, under normal operations, the District would operate all of the facilities – secondary or tertiary effluent pump station, treatment systems, and recharge wells – 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, except during necessary maintenance or cleaning. It is estimated that Project operations at 1,500 acre-feet per year would achieve basin recovery within approximately 20 years (Carollo, 2017). After that time, the district would be expected to operate the Project as needed to accommodate planned growth consistent with approved General Plans while continuing to maintain sustainable groundwater levels. The estimated Project life is 50 years. The District would add six additional staff positions (five full-time and one half-time) to support existing District staff with Project operations. Operations staff would be at the treatment facility each day, but not necessarily at all times (e.g., evening hours). Staff presence at recharge wells would be more intermittent, for maintenance and inspection purposes, as described further below. The treatment facilities would be equipped with permanent nighttime lighting. The recharge wells would be equipped with nighttime motion-activated security lighting. In general, about every four weeks, the District landscaper would visit each Project site under District management to remove weeds, trim trees and hedges; adjust or repair the irrigation systems; and make minor repairs to grounds facilities (e.g., fence, gate, security lighting at the AWPF site). The following subsections outline the more detailed facilities operations and maintenance, monitoring, and reporting activities that would be undertaken for the Project consistent with the GRRP regulations. 3.7.1 Facilities Operations and Maintenance Treatment System The treatment process for a GRRP with subsurface application (as opposed to surface application) is required to include a multiple filtration system for removing pathogens, such as UF or MF; as well as RO, and an UV AOP. Accordingly, regardless of Project facility siting and treatment system configuration, the Project would include each of these treatment technologies. A summary of their function and operation follows. The advanced water purification system would operate at an overall water recovery rate of 70 percent. The treatment system would target an annual production rate of up to 1.3 mgd, requiring an average annual secondary effluent source water supply of 1.86 mgd for the AWPF. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-39 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration MF/UF would be used to treat secondary effluent from the SC WWTF. The MF/UF process involves water being forced through microscopic pores in a series of polymeric hollow fiber membranes. Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration would remove suspended solids, protozoa, bacteria, and some viruses. The system would include three treatment processes, including a stand-by unit. These treatment processes are assumed to have a minimum recovery rate of 90 percent (Carollo, 2017). The MF/UF system would generate backwash waste every 25-30 minutes, chemicalenhanced backwash waste daily, and clean-in-place chemical waste monthly. These wastes would be odorless and discharged into the sewer collection system. The MF/UF membranes would need to be replaced every 5-8 years. Tertiary UV Disinfection For the option where tertiary treatment or MF/UF is provided at SC WWTF. A small tertiary UV disinfection system would be included for the portion of tertiary filtered effluent that would be used by the SC WWTF. This process uses ultraviolet light to remove pathogens and disinfect the water. The tertiary UV disinfection process would not generate a waste stream. The UV lamps would require periodic replacement (every two years) based on operating conditions. The UV electronic ballast would need to be replaced every five years. Reverse Osmosis Water that has undergone microfiltration/ultrafiltration would then be routed through the RO system. Reverse osmosis is an ion separation process that uses semipermeable membranes to remove salts and other solids. Water molecules, which are smaller than salt and many other impurities, can pass through the membranes, leaving larger constituents behind. The reverse osmosis process would be used to remove total dissolved solids (TDS), hardness, and trace levels of organic and inorganic contaminants. The RO process would also remove trace organic compounds, total organic carbon (TOC), and pathogens from the SC WWTF effluent. The purified product water from the RO system is referred to as “permeate.” The RO system would be designed to operate at recovery rates ranging from 75 to 85 percent (Carollo, 2017). The brine would be generated continuously when the RO system is in operation. The brine would be conveyed back to the SC WWTF and blended with treated effluent for disposal via the ocean outfall. Clean-in-place chemical waste is anticipated from the RO system on the order of once every 6-12 months. The clean-in-place waste would be neutralized and disposed of to the sewer collection system. The RO membranes would be replaced every six to eight years. Advanced Oxidation Following RO treatment, the water would be directed through a UV AOP process. This process typically involves the combination of UV light with a chemical oxidant (e.g., hydrogen peroxide or sodium hypochlorite) for disinfection of trace pollutants, should they pass through the prior process (Carollo, 2017). The UV AOP process would not generate a waste stream. The UV lamps would require periodic replacement (every two years) based on operating conditions. The UV electronic ballast would need to be replaced every five years. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-40 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Post-Treatment Stabilization Upon completion of the UV AOP treatment, the advanced purification process would be completed. However, the advanced purified water would be extremely low in salts, nutrients, and other components and have a low pH. In order to stabilize the water for distribution through the conveyance and recharge system, essential minerals would be added back into the water. This process would include decarbonation by air stripping to remove carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the addition of calcium and alkalinity, and pH adjustment with CO 2 or sodium hydroxide addition. Options for calcium and alkalinity adjustment include: (1) the addition of purchased hydrate lime slurry (calcium hydroxide slurry), or (2) calcium chloride (CaCl 2 ). Sodium hypochlorite would be added to the product water for secondary disinfection. Chemical Use and Storage As noted in previous sections, facility operators would use various chemicals to treat the water as it passes through the treatment processes to ensure the water meets IPR water quality requirements and is compatible with native groundwater in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. The chemicals used during the treatment process would be stored onsite at the purification facility in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Chemical storage facilities would include secondary concrete containment, alarm notification systems, and fire sprinklers. Table 3-9 summarizes the chemicals that would be used during the water purification process and the projected annual usage amounts. The main treatment process chemicals would be housed in various bulk storage tanks of up to 5,000 gallons, located inside or next to the process building. Cleaning chemicals would be stored in smaller containers. Sumps and sump pumps within the chemical containment area and loading areas would collect and contain any chemicals accidentally released during operations. TABLE 3-9 TREATMENT PROCESS AND CLEANING CHEMICALS AND ANNUAL USAGE Annual Usage (pounds) Chemical Application Sulfuric acid Main Treatment Process (used to adjust pH and control scaling of RO membranes to maximize overall recovery) 921,479 Antiscalant Main Treatment Process (used to control scaling of RO membranes to maximize recovery) 9,315 Lime (calcium chloride) Main Treatment Process (potential chemical that could be used for posttreatment) 290,204 Carbon dioxide Main Treatment Process (potential chemical that could be used for posttreatment) 71,232 Aqua ammonia Main Treatment Process (used to form monochloramine to protect membranes from biofouling) 19,054 Chlorine (sodium hypochlorite) Main Treatment Process & MF/UF Cleaning (could be used for disinfection, post-treatment and also for membrane cleaning) Hydrogen peroxide Main Treatment Process (used for UV AOP) Sodium bisulfite MF/UF Cleaning (neutralization) 3,552 Sodium hydroxide Main Treatment Process, MF/UF Cleaning (used for post-treatment, pH adjustment) 1,502 Citric acid MF/UF cleaning (used for MF cleaning) 1,502 161,845 33,920 SOURCE: Carollo, 2017 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-41 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description Conveyance System Standard radio-based supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) would be installed at each site. The SCADA system would allow for remote operation of the conveyance system. However, facility operators would conduct routine visits to the pump station sites to monitor operations, conduct general maintenance activities, and service the pumps. The frequency of mechanical equipment inspection (e.g., pumps, valves, tanks, instrumentation) would be guided by manufacturer specifications (e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). General operations and maintenance activities associated with pipelines would include annual inspections of the cathodic protection system, if required, and replacement of sacrificial anodes when necessary; inspection of valve vaults for leakage; testing, exercising and servicing of valves; vegetation maintenance along rights-of-way; and repairs of minor leaks in buried pipeline joints or segments. Abovegrade EQ tanks would require periodic inspection (once every five years) and recoating (once every twenty years). Brine Disposal Waste residuals from the advanced purification process would be returned to the SC WWTF. The facility was originally commissioned in 1928 as a primary treatment facility. In 1998, it was upgraded to a full secondary treatment facility, complete with UV disinfection. Treated, disinfected effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean (Monterey Bay), approximately one mile offshore at a depth of 110 feet below the water's surface (Carollo, 2017). The WWTF has an average dry weather (ADW) design capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd) and was designed to treat up to 81 mgd during peak wet weather (i.e., peak hour wet weather [PHWW]). The 2014 average daily flow rate was approximately 8.1 mgd. Average daily flow rates are projected to increase to approximately 8.29 mgd by 2035 (Carollo, 2017). The system's effluent water quality discharges to the Pacific Ocean are regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program and the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region (Basin Plan) requirements for discharge to the Ocean. The RWQCB Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R3-2017-0030 (NPDES Permit No. CA0048194) establishes limits for conventional water quality constituents and toxic water quality constituents. The Project would have an influent design flow of approximately 1.8 mgd. Operating at an overall recovery rate of 70 percent for the entire treatment facility, the Project would produce approximately 1.3 mgd of advanced purified water and 0.56 mgd of waste residuals. Waste residuals would include backwash from the MF/UF treatment system, brine, and cleaning wastes from the MF/UF and RO system. Cleaning wastes from each system would be neutralized and returned to the SC WWTF via the sewer collection system, along with backwash waste residuals from the MF/UF treatment system. The brine would be piped back to the SC WWTF where it would be combined with treated effluent for disposal via the ocean outfall. The Project would reduce the overall volume of treated effluent discharged to Monterey Bay via the SC WWTF outfall. However, with the brine flowing back into the system, the overall chemical and mineral concentrations of the effluent discharged from the outfall would increase. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-42 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description As noted above, outfall discharges, including discharge concentrations, are regulated by the SC WWTF’s NPDES permit and the Basin Plan. These requirements would continue to apply with Project implementation. However, it is expected that an amendment to the NPDES permit would be required in order to allow for the addition of brine to the SC WWTF’s effluent stream. The amendment process may include toxicity and other testing to confirm compliance with applicable water quality standards. Following amendment of the NPDES permit, it is expected that the SC WWTF effluent monitoring would continue as under the existing NPDES permit. Recharge Wells As with the conveyance system, recharge wells would also be operated remotely via SCADA. District Operations and Maintenance personnel would visit the well sites on a regular basis to conduct similar types of inspections and maintenance activities per manufacturers’ specifications. Regular inspection of each well site by District Operations and Maintenance personnel could occur as frequently as daily, Monday through Friday, to check well pumps and treatment equipment and to record the volume of water pumped and the residual chemicals in the purified water. The actual frequency would depend upon the treatment system configuration and equipment used. Approximately four times per year (once every three months), submersible backwash pumps would be operated to flush debris from the wells. These maintenance activities would require that raw groundwater be pumped from each well for a period of approximately three daytime hours. Around 10,000 gallons of water would be pumped per backwash event, and would be discharged into a backwash basin located at each recharge well site. The expected flow during backwash would be roughly 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute, depending on well capacity. In addition, approximately once every two years, well pump testing would be performed to evaluate the capacity and efficiency of the wells and check for equipment problems. Raw groundwater produced during periodic maintenance activities (i.e., flushing of the well and treatment facilities) and well pump tests would be discharged to the local sanitary sewer system or to the local stormwater drainage system in accordance with applicable state and local regulations, including the District’s Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Order WQ 2014-0194-DWQ). The proposed wells and pump equipment would require periodic repairs to the well pump and column piping, and repair and replacement of the well pump and electrical cable. This work would be completed on an as-needed basis. These maintenance events would require a pump rig and involve a crew working roughly three to four weeks. During such maintenance events, the well might be chemically treated to restore recharge capacity. Power Supply The Project’s expected electricity demand would be 3,600 megawatt hours per year (MWh/yr); 1800 MWh/yr for AWPF operations and 1800 MWh/yr for the conveyance system operations. This EIR assumes that all electrical power for the proposed facilities would be provided via new connections to the existing local PG&E grid. New underground and aboveground power lines Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-43 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description would be installed for the AWPF, conveyance system, and monitoring and recharge wells to connect the new facilities to the existing power grid. Power would be sourced from PG&E or Monterey Bay Community Power. Educational Programming Consistent with its ongoing public outreach and education initiatives, the District would develop an educational program related to water use, reuse, treatment, and conservation. As part of this program, the District would offer tours of the AWPF to members of the public. Up to four tours would be offered per month, for groups of up to 30 people each. Spoils Yard If the AWPF were constructed at Headquarters-West Annex, a spoils yard would be included. The spoils yard would not be directly related to the AWPF operations. Rather, it would be used to store and dry wet dirt, soil, and mud excavated during water main and service line repairs, and from cleaning out meter boxes. The area would be maintained and operated such that the volume would not exceed 100 cubic yards, and the spoils height would not exceed 2 feet. Once dried, the spoils would be off-hauled to a disposal or reuse facility. Sediment control measures, including straw waddles and silt fences, would be continually maintained. Per existing ongoing operations and maintenance activities, routine spoils delivery and off-haul activities would involve approximately three to four truck trips per week. However, the number of trips could vary (i.e., increase or decrease by two or three trips per week), based on variations in maintenance schedule and emergencies. Nighttime use would only occur during the occasional water main repair work. 3.8 Intended Uses of the EIR This is a project-specific EIR, intended to provide review under CEQA for the Project. The EIR describes the Project, as well as the approvals that would be required for Project implementation. The document characterizes the Project setting and discloses the potential environmental impacts of the Project, and identifies mitigation measures where those impacts would be significant. The EIR also addresses cumulative adverse impacts to which the proposed Project could make a substantial contribution. Also, as required under CEQA, it describes and evaluates potentially feasible alternatives to the Project that could avoid or reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the Project’s objectives. 3.8.1 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Approvals The District could be required to obtain the permits and approvals described below for Project construction and operation. California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e) provides that facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water supplies are exempt from local (i.e., city and county) zoning and building ordinances. Accordingly, the Project would not be subject to such local regulations, including any associated with the requirement to obtain planning and building permits, or setbacks and height restrictions. Nevertheless, the District would utilize Santa Cruz County’s grading and erosion control standards as guidelines during construction activities (where appropriate). Moreover, Government Code Section 53091 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-44 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description does not exempt the Project from requirements of any certified Local Coastal Program, including coastal development permit (CDP) requirements, as noted below. Federal • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation) • National Marine Fisheries Service (Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation) • California Office of Historic Preservation (National Historic Preservation Act Consultation) State • State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Stormwater General Construction Permit and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan • SWRCB consideration for Clean Water State Revolving Fund loan and review of environmental review requirements that must be completed to apply for a loan • Title 22 compliant Water Recycling Requirements issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board following approval of an Engineering Report by the Division of Drinking Water • Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or a Report of Waste Discharge • California Department of Fish and Wildlife Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement • California Coastal Commission Coastal Development Permit • California Department of Transportation encroachment permit for constructing pipeline with any state rights-of-way Local • City of Santa Cruz Planning Department – Coastal Development Permit • City of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works – Encroachment Permit • Santa Cruz County Planning Department – Coastal Development Permit • Santa Cruz County Department of Public Works – Encroachment Permit • Santa Cruz County Department of Environmental Health – Well Drilling Permit • City of Capitola Planning Department – Coastal Development Permit • City of Capitola Department of Public Works – Encroachment Permit • Santa Cruz County Sanitation District – Sewer Connection and Discharge Permit • Santa Cruz County Planning Department – Easements for the Headquarters-West Annex Site if additional temporary construction access points are required to the site. • Santa Cruz County Planning Department – Easement for access to the Recharge and Monitoring wells at Cabrillo College. • Willowbrook Lane- Road Right-of-way for connection to the purified water pipeline near the Recharge and Monitoring Wells at Willowbrook Lane. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-45 ESA / 160164 June 2018 3. Project Description • Private land acquisition or use agreement for the Chanticleer Avenue site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Site, and/or Twin Lakes Recharge Well Site if the site(s) were selected. _________________________ 3.9 References Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) 2017. Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Final Draft. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District by Carollo Engineers. November 2017. HydroMetrics WRI, 2015. Technical Memorandum: Estimated Effects on Sustainable Yield and Pumping Goals of Climate Change and Updated Basin Consumptive Use Using Water Balance Approach. October 27, 2015. HydroMetrics WRI. 2018. Management Implications of SkyTEM Seawater Intrusion Results Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, March 8. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2016. Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting for the Soquel Creek Water District. June 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 3-46 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 4 Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Overview This chapter provides a Project-level impact analysis of the physical environmental effects of implementing the Project. This chapter describes the environmental setting, assesses impacts, and identifies mitigation measures for significant impacts. Scope of Analysis This chapter is organized by environmental resource topic, as follows: Sections 4.2 Aesthetics 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater 4.3 Air Quality 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water 4.4 Biological Resources 4.12 Land Use and Recreation 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.13 Noise and Vibration 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.14 Population and Housing 4.7 Geology and Paleontology 4.15 Transportation 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Each section of Chapter 4 contains the following elements, based on requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): • Setting. This subsection presents a description of the existing physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the Project with respect to each resource topic at an appropriate level of detail to allow the reader to understand the impact analysis. • Regulatory Framework. This subsection describes the relevant laws and regulations that apply to protecting the environmental resources within the Project area, and the governmental agencies responsible for enforcing those laws and regulations. • Impacts and Mitigation Measures. This subsection evaluates the potential for the Project to adversely affect the physical environment described in the setting. Significance criteria for evaluating environmental impacts are defined at the beginning of each impact analysis Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.1-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Overview section, followed by a discussion (the Approach to Analysis) that explains how the significance criteria are applied in evaluating the Project. The conclusion of each impact analysis is expressed in terms of impact significance, which is discussed further in Section 4.1.2 below. This subsection also identifies mitigation measures for all of the impacts considered significant or potentially significant, consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.4[a][1]), which state that an environmental impact report (EIR), “shall describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts…” Each subsection identifies impacts of mitigation measures for those mitigation measures that could cause secondary environmental impacts, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4, which states that “if a mitigation measure would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposes, the effects of the mitigation measure shall be discussed but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.” The analyses of cumulative impacts are presented in Chapter 5. Significance Determinations The significance criteria used in this EIR are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines with some minor modifications. In certain sections it was necessary to develop additional significance criteria to capture the specific environmental impacts of the Project. The significance criteria used to analyze the various environmental resource topics are presented in each section of Chapter 4 before the discussion of impacts. The categories used to designate impact significance are: • No Impact (NI). An impact is considered not applicable (no impact) if there is no potential for impacts or the environmental resource does not occur within the project area or the area of potential effect. For example, there would be no impacts related to tree removal if there is no tree removal proposed at a project site. • Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required (LS). This determination applies if there is a potential for some limited impact, but not a substantial adverse effect that qualifies under the significance criteria as a significant impact. • Less than Significant impact with Mitigation (LSM). This determination applies if there is a potential for the project to result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria, or if there is certainty that the project would result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria, but feasible mitigation is available that would reduce the impact on a less-than-significant level. An impact described as “potentially” significant indicates there is a potential for this impact to occur, but there is either not enough project information or sitespecific information to determine definitively whether or not it qualifies under the significance criteria as significant. Impacts identified as “potentially significant” are treated the same as significant impacts in this EIR. • Significant and Unavoidable (SU). This determination applies if the project would result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria, but for which there appears to be no feasible mitigation available to reduce the impact on a less-than-significant level. • Significant and Unavoidable impact with implementation of Mitigation (SUM). This determination applies if it is certain that the project would result in an adverse effect that meets the significance criteria and mitigation is available to lessen the impact, but the residual Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.1-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Overview effect after implementation of the measure would remain significant. Therefore, the impact is significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Within each environmental resource section in this chapter, a summary table is provided at the beginning of the impact discussion to summarize the potential impacts and indicate the level of impact significance. Environmental impacts are numbered throughout this EIR, using the section number followed by sequentially numbered impacts. Mitigation measures are numbered to correspond with the impact numbers; for example, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 addresses Impact 4.3-1. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, effects determined not to be significant do not need to be discussed in detail in an EIR. Where one or more significance criteria were found to be not applicable or to have no impact, they are discussed in the approach to analysis section for each resource topic. However, in the course of this evaluation, the District determined that the Project would have no impact on some resource sections in their entirety, including agricultural and forestry resources, mineral resources, and public services. These resource topics and explanations for why there would be no impacts are discussed below. Agricultural and Forestry Resources The Project components would be located in urban areas. There are no agricultural uses on the Project sites or in the Project area. Further, the Project sites are not zoned for such uses. The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the Project sites as Urban and Built‐Up Land, defined as “…land [that] is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional facilities, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, and water control structures” (California Department of Conservation, 2016). The Project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non‐agricultural use, and would not conflict with existing agricultural land uses, zoning for agricultural land use, or a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on agricultural resources. The Project sites do not include any lands zoned or managed for forest or timber uses. Implementation of the Project would also not affect any tracts of land with a high density of trees. Although construction activities could require the removal of mature trees to accommodate the proposed facilities, the removal of these isolated trees is not considered a loss or conversion of forest land. The impacts of tree removal are evaluated in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. No further consideration of this topic is required in this EIR. Mineral Resources There are no known mineral resources in or adjacent to the Project sites. The potential for impacts to mineral resources and the identification of their potential locations was completed using available data from the California Geological Survey (CGS) formerly the Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), the Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and County of Santa Cruz GIS database information (CDMG, 1987; DOGGR, 2018; County of Santa Cruz, 2018). CGS is responsible for preparing Mineral Land Classification Maps that designate Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). MRZs define areas where important mineral deposits occur, based on the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.1-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.1 Overview value of the mineral resource. The Project area is predominantly within areas designated as MRZ-4, areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone (CDMG, 1987). The Project area is entirely developed urban land that would be inaccessible for classification or use. Some smaller areas are classified as MRZ-1, areas designated as having no significant or unlikely mineral deposits. The only area designated as MRZ-2, areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, is the corridor of San Lorenzo River, which some of the pipeline routes would pass through. However, this area is also entirely within the urban area and is not currently used for extraction of mineral resources. Finally, the County of Santa Cruz GIS database indicates that there are no mineral resources in or near the Project area (County of San Cruz, 2018). The DOGGR well finder website indicated that there are no oil or gas production wells at or near any of the Project components (DOGGR, 2018). Accordingly, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Public Services The Project would not include the construction of new housing, nor would it increase the number of workers in the area such that new governmental facilities would be necessary. The Project would add six additional staff positions (five full-time, and one half-time) to support existing District staff with Project operations. It is expected that additional staff and Project construction workers would primarily be from within the Santa Cruz region. This small increase in employees, and the short-term use of construction workers for the Project may result in some need for additional public services, but not to the extent that would require any new or physically altered governmental facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, and other services. Therefore, the Project would not have any impacts related to public services. Impacts related to emergency service providers are addressed in Section 4.15, Transportation. _________________________ 4.1.1 References California Department of Conservation, 2016, California Important Farmland Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed on April 4, 2018. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1987, Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area, Special Report 146, Part IV. County of San Cruz, 2018, Mineral Resource Zones in Santa Cruz County. Available at http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/PublicGISWeb/. Accessed on February 2, 2018. Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), 2018, Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources - Well Finder. Available at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/ wellfinder/#close. Accessed on February 2, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.1-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics 4.2 Aesthetics 4.2.1 Introduction This section provides an assessment of the visual character and quality of the Project area, identifies potentially affected views from public vantage points, and evaluates the potential visual impacts that could result from construction and operation of the Project. Mitigation measures to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant levels are also identified. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Aesthetics generally pertain to requests for facility dimensions and site renderings, potential changes in lighting conditions, whether Project site would be landscaped and screened from public view, compatibility of proposed development with surrounding aesthetic character, obstruction of views, and tree removal. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.2.2 Environmental Setting Concepts and Terminology Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public viewer’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, a visual or aesthetic impact may occur. Familiarity with the following terms and concepts will aid the reader in understanding the content of this section. Visual Character is a general description of the visual attributes of a particular land use setting. The purpose of defining the visual character of an area is to provide the context within which the visual quality of a particular site or locale is most likely to be perceived by the viewing public. For urban areas, visual character is typically described on the neighborhood level or in terms of areas with common land use; intensity of development; socioeconomic conditions; and/or landscaping and urban design features. For natural and open space settings, visual character is most commonly described in terms of areas with common landscape attributes (such as landform, vegetation, water features, etc.). Visual Quality is defined as the overall visual impression or attractiveness of a site or locale as determined by its aesthetic qualities (such as color, variety, vividness, coherence, uniqueness, harmony, and pattern). For this analysis, the visual quality of a site or locale is defined according to three levels: • Low. The location is lacking in natural or cultural visual resource amenities typical of the region. A site with low visual quality will have aesthetic elements that are relatively unappealing and perceptibly uncharacteristic of the surrounding area. • Moderate. The location is typical or characteristic of the region’s natural or cultural visual amenities. A site with moderate visual quality maintains the visual character of the surrounding area, with aesthetic elements that do not stand out as either contributing to or detracting from the visual character of an area. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics • High. The location has visual resources that are unique or exemplary of the region’s natural or cultural scenic amenities. A site with high visual quality is likely to stand out as particularly appealing and makes a notable positive contribution to the visual character of an area. The identification of viewer types and volumes describes the type and quantity of potentially affected viewers within the visual study area (defined below). Land uses that derive value from the quality of their settings are considered potentially sensitive to changes in visual conditions. Sensitive viewers are those who have a strong stake or interest in the quality of the landscape and have a greater sensitivity to changes that degrade or detract from the visual character of an area. Examples of sensitive viewers include travelers on designated scenic routes, park visitors, bikers, pedestrians, and tourists. Viewer Exposure addresses the variables that affect the viewing conditions of a site. Viewer exposure considers some or all of the following factors: landscape visibility (the ability to see the landscape); viewing distance (i.e., the proximity of viewers to the project); viewing angle (whether the project would be viewed from a superior, inferior, or level line of sight); extent of visibility (whether the line of sight is open and panoramic to the project area or restricted by terrain, vegetation, and/or structures); and duration of view. Visual Sensitivity is the overall measure of a site’s susceptibility to adverse visual changes. Visual sensitivity is rated as high, moderate, or low and is determined based on the combined factors of visual quality, viewer types and volumes, and viewer exposure to the project. Visual Study Area The visual study area for the Project is the area from which either treatment facility, recharge and monitoring well facilities, or pipeline locations (during visible construction activities) would come into view. Because the Project area is in both urban and heavily vegetated open space settings, trees, shrubs, and buildings quickly restrict or block views of Project components as viewers move away from Project sites; consequently, these elements limit the visual study area in most places to publicly accessible locations immediately surrounding Project components. In some locations, however, favorable topographic relationships or the lack of intervening features extends the distance from which a viewer would be able to observe features of the Project. While the exact boundaries of the visual study area depend on site conditions (i.e., viewshed, 1 structures, and vegetation) and are highly site-specific, performing an assessment of the visual study area is important in identifying potentially affected viewers and describing the visual quality and character of relevant locations. Site reconnaissance of the Project facility areas were performed in 2016 and 2017 to identify the visual study area and take representative photographs of existing visual conditions. A set of photographs is included in this section to document the existing visual conditions of the Project sites and adjacent areas. Figure 4.2-1 provides an overview of photo locations; Figures 4.2-2 through 4.2-6 depict views of Project sites and surrounding locations. 1 A viewshed is an area of land, water, or other urban or environmental element that is visible to the human eye from a fixed vantage point. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ # Recharge Well (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) 17 # Photo Location and Number Å Ä Soquel N DR 17 # COLLEG # E DR Cabrillo College South E R AV SI IS C AN Aptos RR Capitola 101 £ ¤ 47TH AVE TOPAZ ST PO O RT LA DR SANTA CLARA COUNTY Glenwood 17 ¬ « 9 « ¬ Felton SANTA CRUZ COUNTY DR Live Oak CLIFF WILL OW B RO O K LN ROSEDALE AVE ST SCC KENNEDY DR ## 14 18 R R SCC R DR E CABR ILLO 49TH AVE CAPITOLA RD Schwan Lagoon A TOL POR T ON M Y RE E AV Willowbrook Lane Cabrillo 11 College North Twin 13 Lakes 12 Church # KENNEDY DR 10 Monterey Avenue FR GRACE ST 38TH AVE LOTM A 30TH AVE SCC R Å Ä 1 CAPIT OLA A VE 41ST AVE TICLE CHAN 17TH AVE AV E 7T H BROMMER ST B CLARES ST I _ ^ F DR 16TH AVE GROSS RD R WHA CALIFORNIA ST RD MA 16 D LV ST E E AV 12 CH BEA ST RSID _ ^ Santa Cruz WWTF ST 3 D 2N NT ST FRO Neary Lagoon Park RIVE T LL S ST 3rd 15 SAN LO REN ZO O LA 9 AUTO PLAZA DR CAPI TOLA RD AY DW OA T AN S OCE PBE CAM AVE T LAUREL S P IC PACIF BR IT ICK ST 1 R FREDE ST WIN Å Ä BA Y DAR Santa Cruz CA WATER ST _ ^ EL QU RD SO ARF WH ER AV E E QU SO VE LA 4 6 7 41ST AVE 5 8 N Chanticleer Site 1 PORTER ST Å Ä PARK AVE Å Ä HeadquartersWest Annex Site Q UE L D R SO 9 «1 ¬ Santa Cruz «1 ¬ ¬ « 152 0 0.5 Miles SOURCE: SOURCE:SqCWD, SqCWD,2017 2017; ESA, 2018 The District is considering a number of potential pipeline routes, the final selection of which would be determined based upon treatment system configuration and alignment feasibility (e.g., sufficient space within rights-of-way, potential conflicts with existing utilities, environmental impacts). Watsonville Area of Detail MONTEREY COUNTY ¬1 « Pure Water Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Pure Figure 3-1 Figure 4.2-1 Project Overview Photo Location Map Photo 1 - Northeast-facing View along Bay Street Photo 3 - View of SC WWTF Entrance Gate Photo 2 - North-facing View along Pedestrian Path adjacent Bay Street SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-2 Public View of the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Photo 4 – West-facing View along Soquel Avenue Photo 5 – East-facing View along Soquel Avenue Photo 6 – South-facing View along Chanticleer Avenue Photo 7 – East-facing View of Sheriff’s Offices along Chanticleer Avenue SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-3 Public Views of the Chanticleer Site Photo 8 – West-facing View towards Soquel Drive Photo 9 – East-facing View along Capitola Avenue SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-4 Public Views of the Headquarters-West Annex Site Photo 10 – North-facing View along Monterey Avenue Photo 11 – East-facing View on Pedestrian Path on Willowbrook Lane Photo 12 – South-facing View of Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-5a Public Views of the Recharge Well Site Options Photo 13 – South-facing View along Cabrillo College Drive, at Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Photo 14 – East-facing View on Cabrillo College Recreational Field, adjacent to Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-5b Public Views of the Recharge Well Site Options Photo 15 – North-facing View on Pedestrian Path towards Riverside Ave Bridge Photo 16 – East-facing View along Auto Plaza Drive Photo 17 – East-facing View along Capitola Road at 47th Avenue Photo 18 – North-facing View along 49th Avenue at Emerald Street SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-6 Public Views of Potential Pipeline Routes 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Visual Character The visual study area is large enough such that it encompasses several parks and neighborhoods with distinct visual character, including the Westside, Boardwalk, and Seabright/Midtown, neighborhoods of the City of Santa Cruz; the unincorporated Santa Cruz County communities of Live Oak and Soquel; and the City of Capitola. The general visual character of each area, in the vicinity of Project facilities, is described as follows: • The Westside, Boardwalk, and Seabright/Midtown areas, in the vicinity of the Project facilities at the SC WWTF, and along the pipeline alignments, consist of a mix of residential and commercial areas, with the San Lorenzo river bisecting the area and the Pacific Ocean defining the western boundary of the area. Residential developments are mostly closely spaced, two-story, single family-homes that are fronted by small landscaped yards and small apartment buildings. Commercial areas, consisting primarily of single or small row clusters of businesses, are more prevalent in the Seabright/Midtown area. Mature trees are present throughout the neighborhoods, including public sidewalk areas; however, the density of trees is greater in residential areas than commercial areas. The neighborhoods are interspersed with schools and parks (such as Neary Lagoon Park) that break up the visual pattern of homes and commercial zones, and open up views for motorists, pedestrians, and residents. The neighborhoods slope gently downward to the west, offering views of the Pacific Ocean from areas with favorable topography. The area does not have an untouched natural setting due to the dense presence of structures, utilities, and roads. • The Live Oak and Capitola areas includes a blend of residential, commercial, and light industrial uses, with commercial and light industrial uses predominantly clustered along roads fronting or bisecting Highway 1, such as Soquel Avenue. The visual character of the pipeline alignments through Live Oak and Capitola is similar to the City of Santa Cruz neighborhoods described above, although residential areas are primarily single-family homes and there are fewer apartment structures. However, the wider roadway and larger lot sizes along Capitola Road provides breaks up the visual pattern to a greater degree. Views along Soquel Avenue in this neighborhood are dominated by the presence of Highway 1 and the adjacent roadway screening to the north. The railroad alignment pipeline route is defined by mature landscaping on both sides of the alignment. As above, the area does not have an untouched natural setting due to the dense presence of structure, utilities, and roads. The relatively flat topography and density of development along pipeline routes limits views primarily to immediately surrounding areas. • The Soquel area also includes a blend of residential and commercial uses; however, commercial areas are more limited, primarily occurring along Soquel Drive and roads bisecting Highway 1. While the area does not have an untouched natural setting due to the dense presence of structures, utilities, and roads, a greater presence of mature trees in landscaping (compared to other areas near Project facility locations) provides a more naturalistic appearance than other Project areas. However, the density of development and mature trees limits views in most Project areas to the immediately surrounding area. The Cabrillo College area is an exception to the enclosed view, single family residential/commercial character of the area, consisting of a complex of large educational buildings and outdoor recreation areas, as well as an adjacent religious worship and education campus (Twin Lakes Church and School) dispersed throughout the area, providing a more sprawling developed character with more open views within the complex area. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Visual Sensitivity The overall visual sensitivity of each Project site is described in terms of its visual quality, potentially affected viewers, and exposure conditions. Table 4.2-1 summarizes these attributes, which are described in more detail in the remainder of this section. TABLE 4.2-1 SUMMARY OF VISUAL SENSITIVITY FINDINGS Project Site Visual Quality Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions Visual Sensitivity Santa Cruz WWTF Site (pump station, tertiary, advanced water purification facility) Low Poorly exposed. Site is within an existing treatment facility complex that is inaccessible to the public and largely screened from public areas. Some direct/open views of the existing facility may be available from the Lagoon trail system. Low Chanticleer Site (advanced water purification facility) Low Limited exposure to numerous motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling along Chanticleer Avenue, Soquel Avenue, and Highway 1; with exposure for brief periods, within an existing commercial and light industrial area. Low Headquarters-West Annex Site (advanced water purification facility) Moderate Limited and brief exposure to passing motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians due to intervening vegetation and topography. Exposure is limited by existing adjacent PG&E substation. Monterey Avenue (recharge and monitoring wells) Low Willowbrook Lane (recharge and monitoring wells) Moderate Exposed for brief periods to small numbers of passing motorists; highly visible from the adjacent Willowbrook Park. Twin Lakes Church (recharge and monitoring wells) Low to Moderate Poorly exposed site screened from public views Low Cabrillo College (recharge and monitoring wells) Low to Moderate Poorly exposed site screened from public views; with the exception of the northernmost portion of the site adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive; adjacent to large parking lot. Low Pipeline Locations Poorly exposed. Inaccessible to the public. Low to Moderate Low Moderate Visual sensitivity, visual quality, and viewing conditions are highly variable and sitespecific. Generally, in-road areas along city streets are well exposed, moderately sensitive to visual change, and representative of the surrounding visual character. Generally, segments within commercial areas have lower visual sensitivity than segments within residential areas; however, exceptions occur where commercial areas are within a more naturalistic background, such as in the vicinity of creek crossings or other undeveloped areas. Santa Cruz WWTF Site Figure 4.2-2 provides photographs of the existing SC WWTF Site from public areas along Bay Road, La Barranca Park, and Neary Lagoon Park. Photos 1 and 2 provide views towards the site from publicly accessible vantage points (Bay Road and La Barranca Park). However, the treatment facility is surrounded by mature vegetation on most sides, and is at a lower elevation than Bay Street; thus, the existing treatment facility is minimally visible to not visible from these viewpoints. From the court and playground areas of Neary Lagoon Park, only the entrance road to the treatment facility are available (Photo 3). Direct, short-term views of the existing treatment facility are available from the lagoon trail, as trail users pass directly along the northern boundary Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics of the facility. Note that the Project facilities would be within the existing WWTF developed areas. Visual Quality. The SC WWTF Site, which is restricted from public use and access, is characterized by the presence of vehicles and equipment, and the existing wastewater treatment facility complex. The Project site is within the existing WWTF developed area, along the northern edge of the site (see Figures 3-3 and 3-4). The SC WWTF facility is surrounded by mature landscaping and Neary Lagoon Park. Because the appearance of the SC WWTF Site is relatively unappealing and perceptibly uncharacteristic of the surrounding open space and residential areas, the existing visual quality is considered low. Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. Numerous factors limit public views of the SC WWTF Site. The site is at a lower elevation than Bay Street and La Barranca Park, and is surrounded by a security gate and mature trees/landscaping. Therefore, views of the Project site are screened or blocked by topography, vegetation, and the existing WWTF elements for most motorists and pedestrians traveling along Bay Road. Views of the Project site by Neary Lagoon Park users in the area of the tennis courts and playground are blocked by the WWTF security fencing and existing facilities between the Park and Project site. Direct views of the Project site from the Lagoon Park trail are available for brief periods, with the existing WWTF facilities in the background of such views. Users of the trail would likely expect a high-quality environment, given the undeveloped nature of the lagoon trail system; thus, trail users are considered sensitive users. Nevertheless, the site has low viewer exposure, is within the existing WWTF facility setting, and would be seen only briefly as viewers pass by. Visual Sensitivity. Because the site has low visual quality and low exposure, it is considered to have low visual sensitivity. Chanticleer Site Figure 4.2-3 provides photos of the Chanticleer Site and vicinity. Photos 4 and 5 provide views of the site from Soquel Avenue, which are limited by fencing surrounding the site, as well as the sites topographic position at the top of a rise (from eastbound Soquel Avenue). Photo 6 displays views of the existing site entrance along Chanticleer Avenue, with adjacent commercial and institutional land uses in the middleground view, and extending to residential uses in the background. Photo 7 provides an example of the scale and massing of land uses in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. Visual Quality. The Chanticleer Site, which is restricted from public use and access, is characterized by the presence of vehicles and equipment near the site entrance at the Chanticleer Avenue/Soquel Avenue entrance, green fencing surrounding the majority of the site, and a boarded up structure in poor condition. Views of the interior of the site are blocked by the existing fencing, with the exception of the two-story structure adjacent to Soquel Avenue. Views of the site are in the foreground and middleground of views dominated by commercial developments along Soquel and Chanticleer Avenues. Because the appearance of the site is relatively unappealing and within the context of other commercial developments, the visual quality is considered low. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. Public views of the Chanticleer Site are limited by the existing fence surrounding much of the site, as well as the placement of commercial properties along Chanticleer Avenue that abut western and southern site boundaries. Currently, the only portion of the site that is highly visible from public areas is the area at the corner of Soquel and Chanticleer Avenues currently used for parking (see Photo 4, foreground). The site has low viewer exposure and would be seen only briefly as viewers pass by. Visual Sensitivity. Because the site has low visual quality and low exposure, it is considered to have low visual sensitivity. Headquarters-West Annex Site Figure 4.2-4 provides views of the Headquarters-West Annex Site and vicinity. Photo 8 displays views of the Project site from Aguazul Drive, with Soquel Drive in the foreground. Photo 9 provides a view of the west side of the site from Capitola Avenue. Visual Quality. The West Annex portion of the Project site is an undeveloped site bordered by green fencing, which currently blocks views of the site from adjacent areas. The Headquarters area of the Project site includes a single-story warehouse, portable trailers, and other structures used for District maintenance activities. Both areas are restricted from public use and access. The northern portion of the site is set back from public areas, with intervening vegetation and a PG&E substation dominating views. Views of the Headquarters portion of the Project site are mostly blocked by landscaping along Soquel Drive and the Headquarters office and parking areas, just off Soquel Drive. While most of the Project site is not highly visible from public areas, the undeveloped portions of the site and surrounding mature screening vegetation are representative of the naturalistic amenities that exist in the neighborhood. Thus, the visual quality of the site is considered moderate. Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. The site is at a higher elevation then the street level along Soquel Drive. Affected viewers include motorists and pedestrians in close proximity to the site, who would only briefly see the site as they walk or drive by. Views from Soquel Drive and Aguazul Drive are limited by mature trees and vegetation along Soquel Drive (and not within the Project site); while views from Capitola Drive are limited by mature trees and the PG&E substation adjacent to Capitola Drive. In addition, existing site fencing blocks views of the West Annex portion of the site. Visual Sensitivity. The visual sensitivity of the Headquarters-West Annex Site is considered to be low to moderate because, while the site has a moderate visual quality, most of the site is not visible from public viewpoints and affected viewers are only exposed briefly. Monterey Avenue Site Figure 4.2-5, Photo 10 shows the general location of the Monterey Avenue site from Monterey Avenue. The site is between the yellow home and private driveway in the middleground of this viewpoint, but is blocked by the surrounding properties and structures. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Visual Quality. The Monterey Avenue Site, which is restricted from public use and access, is along a private access road off Monterey Avenue, which provides additional access to the First United Pentecostal Church complex and apartments. The Project site consists of a small fenced parcel to the west of the access road, and includes an existing but decommissioned groundwater well and planted grasses/landscaping. Because the appearance of the Monterey Avenue site is relatively unappealing and perceptibly uncharacteristic of the surrounding areas, the visual quality is considered low. Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. As noted above, public views of the Monterey Avenue site are blocked by the surrounding properties and structures. There may be brief and limited views of the fencing along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to the private entrance road. However, given the narrow width of the entrance road and the height of the surrounding structures and trees, the site is mostly unnoticeable by viewers passing by the site along Monterey Avenue. Therefore, the site has low viewer exposure. Visual Sensitivity. Because the site has low visual quality and low viewer exposure, it is considered to have low visual sensitivity. Willowbrook Lane Site Figure 4.2-5, Photo 11 shows the Willowbrook Lane Site from the adjacent Willowbrook Park grounds. As shown, views of the Project site are available from public view points. Visual Quality. The site is restricted from public use and access, and consists of a mowed lawn area with mature planted shrubs and trees scattered throughout the site. While the site is fenced on all sides, and is not available for public use, it appears visually connected to the adjacent Park. However, due to the small size of this parcel, the site itself does not particularly stand out as either contributing or detracting from the areas’ aesthetic qualities and visual character. For these reasons, the site is considered to have moderate visual quality. Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. The site is apparent from public vantage points along Willowbrook Lane and from the adjacent Park. Views of the site are particularly apparent from the southbound travel direction, where an existing private access drive and parking area immediately to the north of the site provide open views of the site with the Park, tennis and basketball courts in the middleground and a mature tree line in the background. However, affected viewers would be exposed briefly as they move past the site. Views from Park uses may be more extensive in terms of exposure length; however, the areas adjacent to the site are designated for active uses (tennis and basketball courts), and do not include bleachers, benches, picnic tables, or playgrounds. The visual conditions of surrounding areas aren’t a focus of these types of use, as compared to picnic areas and other contemplative vantage points. Visual Sensitivity. Because the Willowbrook Lane Site has moderate visual quality, is seen briefly by viewers traveling along Willowbrook Lane, and adjacent Park uses are active rather than contemplative, it is considered to have moderate visual sensitivity. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Twin Lakes Church Site Figure 4.2-5a, Photo 12 shows the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site area from a point near the intersection of Cabrillo College Drive and the entrance to the Twin Lakes Church complex. The site is not highly visible from public areas, as there are no sidewalks adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive and the site is elevated from the roadway, with mature trees and vegetation adjacent to the roadway. As shown in Figure 3-8b, the potential recharge well site is located towards the south end of the Twin Lakes Church parking lot. As viewed from the vantage point shown in Figure 4.2-5a, Photo 12, the approximate location of the potential recharge well site is partially screened by topography and mature trees. A portion of the site has historically been used for equipment staging and/or materials storage. Visual Quality. As shown in Figure 3-8b, the Project site and adjacent areas consists of an existing asphalt concrete parking lot and adjacent ruderal grassland, bounded to the north and west by the same, and to the east and south by a row of mature trees and vegetation fronting Cabrillo College Drive. The large trees and landscaped, steeply-sloping hillside maintain a somewhat naturalistic appearance. However, the prominence of Cabrillo College Drive, the church complex’s large driveway, and expansive parking areas in the foreground of most views of the area detract from the areas aesthetic quality. For these reasons, the site is considered to have a low to moderate visual quality. Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. As discussed above, the site is mostly screened from public view. Visual Sensitivity. Because the site has low to moderate visual quality and low viewer exposure, it is considered to have low visual sensitivity. Cabrillo College North and South Sites Figure 4.2-5b, Photos 13 and 14 show the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites areas from points near the intersection of Cabrillo College Drive and the entrance to the Twin Lakes Church complex. The sites are not highly visible from public areas, as there are no sidewalks adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive and the sites are elevated from the roadway, with mature trees and vegetation adjacent to the roadway. The Cabrillo College North site (Photo 13), a small area within a grassy lawn area between the two parking areas shown on Figure 3-8b is the only highly visible portion of the site. Photo 14 depicts the large baseball/playfield at the south edge of the campus, with the Cabrillo College South site at the far right of the view. Visual Quality. The Project Recharge well areas are at the southeastern corner of the Cabrillo College (see Figure 3-8b), with one potential recharge well site located in a grass area adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive, adjacent to two parking areas. The other potential recharge well site is within a maintenance area near the southeast portion of the overall site. The Project site and adjacent areas consists of open grassy playfields, with a row of mature trees and vegetation fronting Cabrillo College Drive and Highway 1. The large trees and grassy areas maintain an open space appearance. However, the large parking areas in the foreground of most views of the area detract from the areas aesthetic quality. For these reasons, the site is considered to have a low to moderate visual quality. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Affected Viewers and Exposure Conditions. As discussed above, the sites are not visible from public viewpoints, with the exception of the grassy area immediately adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive and two existing parking lots. Visual Sensitivity. Because the site has low to moderate visual quality and low viewer exposure, it is considered to have low visual sensitivity. Pipeline Segments Figure 4.2-6 provides representative photos of pipeline locations throughout the Project area, indicating the visual quality of City and County streets of the overall area, although the road condition, number and extent of sidewalk trees, and the presence of overhead electrical lines all influence the visual quality of a given area. Photo 15 displays the Riverside Bridge crossing of the San Lorenzo River, juxtaposing a large roadway crossing and commercial uses with a naturalistic view of the river. Photo 16 presents a typical commercial segment of the pipeline alignment, with mature trees and landscaping providing a visual buffer in some areas. Photos 17 and 18 display typical residential areas, some with mature street trees that restrict the view exposure; while other areas include few street trees and exhibit more open views of developed areas. Generally, the overall level of development, presence of mature trees and vegetation, and the relatively flat to gently sloping nature of most of the pipeline alignment areas restricts views to a fairly short-view area. 4.2.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations There are no applicable federal regulations related to aesthetics. State Regulations The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) designates highways as scenic highways based on how much of the landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which views are compromised by development. Highway 1 within Santa Cruz County is an Eligible State Scenic Highway – Not officially Designated (Caltrans, 2011). Local Regulations The City of Santa Cruz General Plan policies related to aesthetics do not apply to the Project sites. The City of Capitola General Plan does not have an aesthetics section or design guidelines section. The Soquel Master Plan includes design policies for Soquel Drive; however, the policies appear to apply to structural development to the west of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. County of Santa Cruz General Plan The County of Santa Cruz General Plan includes the following objectives and policies that guide development design and aesthetic resource impact considerations, with the goal of protecting visual resources and scenic roads (County of Santa Cruz, 2007). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Chapter 5. Conservation and Open Space Objective 5.10a: Protection of Visual Resources. To identify, protect and restore the aesthetic values of visual resources. Objective 5.10b: New Development in Visual Resource Areas. To ensure that new development is appropriately designed and constructed to have minimal to no adverse impact upon identified visual resources. Scenic Roads Policy 5.10.10: Designation of Scenic Roads. State Highway 1 (Route 1) is valued for its vista. The public vista from this road shall be afforded the highest level of protection. Policy 5.10.12: Development Visible from Urban Scenic Roads. In the viewshed of urban scenic roads, require new discretionary development to improve the visual quality through siting, architectural design, landscaping and appropriate signage. Policy 5.10.13 Landscaping Requirements. All grading and land disturbance projects visible from scenic roads shall conform to the following visual mitigation conditions: a) Blend contours of the finished surface with the adjacent natural terrain and landscape to achieve a smooth transition and natural appearance; and b) Incorporate only characteristic or indigenous plant species appropriate for the area. Chapter 8. Community Design Objective 8.5: Commercial and Industrial Design. To achieve a well-defined hierarchy of neighborhood, community and regional commercial and industrial areas which harmonize and complement the unique characteristics of each neighborhood they serve, through coordination circulation systems and architectural style, and appropriate landscaping and signage. Policy 8.5.1: Concentrate Commercial Uses. Contain commercial and industrial uses in designated areas, avoiding new strip commercial uses, to minimize impacts on residential areas, adjacent roads, and property, and on the scenic setting of the County. Policy 8.5.2 Commercial Compatibility with Other Uses. Ensure compatibility of commercial and industrial use with adjacent uses through application of the Site Architectural and Landscape Design Review or similar ordinance. Give careful attention to landscaping, signing, access, site and building design, visual impacts, drainage, parking, on site circulation, traffic patterns, and where applicable, availability of water, sewage system capacity, fencing and mitigation of potential nuisance factors, visual aspects, and traffic problems. Objective 8.6 Building Design. To encourage building design that addresses the neighborhood and community context; utilizes scale appropriate to adjacent development; and incorporates design elements that are appropriate to surrounding uses and the type of land use planned for the area. Soquel Master Plan The Soquel Master Plan includes design policies for Soquel Drive; however, the policies appear to apply to structural development to the west of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics 4.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on Aesthetics if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. • Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Approach to Analysis The visual quality impact analysis is based on field observations conducted by ESA in 2016 and 2017; review of Project maps and drawings; aerial and ground-level photographs; simulations of the Project within photographs; and review of a variety of data in the record, such as local planning documents. The analysis identifies potential temporary (short-term) and permanent (long-term) Project impacts on scenic vistas or the visual character and quality of a site as seen from urban locales, recreational facilities, and open space areas. The approach to evaluating the effect of the Project under each CEQA significance criterion is briefly clarified below: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista: This criterion is applicable only to projects that would be located on or disrupt access to a scenic vista, or result in visual changes within its viewshed. Scenic vistas may be officially recognized or designated (e.g., within local planning documents or the Caltrans scenic highway program), or they may be informal in nature (e.g., mountain peaks or coastal bluffs). The project’s effect would be considered substantial if it would appreciably damage or remove the visual qualities that make the view unique, unobstructed and/or exemplary. • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway: Damage to a scenic resource is substantial when it is reasonably perceptible to affected viewers, as seen from a scenic highway; and when it appreciably degrades one or more of the aesthetic qualities that contributes to a scenic setting. The presence of and potential damage to scenic resources in this analysis is considered along with project-related effects on the existing visual character and quality of a site or surroundings (see next bullet). • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings: This criterion is applicable to all locations where the project would result in either temporary or permanent visual change. The project is considered to “substantially degrade” the visual character or quality of a site if it would have a strong negative influence on the public’s experience and appreciation of the visual environment. As such, visual changes are always considered in the context of a site or locale’s visual sensitivity (as described in the setting). Visual changes caused by the project are evaluated in terms of their visual contrast with the area’s predominant landscape elements and features, their dominance in views relative to other existing features, and the degree to which they could block or Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics obscure views of aesthetically pleasing landscape elements. Visual changes are also evaluated in terms of potential damage to or removal of features of the natural or built environment that contribute to a scenic public setting. The magnitude of visual change that would result in a significant impact (i.e., substantial degradation) is influenced by its degree of permanence, and is inversely related to the visual sensitivity of a site. • Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area: This criterion is applicable to projects that require nighttime lighting (either during construction or operation), or that involve structures or finishes that could create substantial glare. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Caltrans designates Highway 1 within Santa Cruz County as an Eligible State Scenic Highway – Not officially Designated and the County of Santa Cruz General Plan identifies Highway 1 as a valued public vista. Project pipelines and the Chanticleer Site along Soquel Avenue and Auto Plaza Drive would be adjacent to Highway 1, and alignments cross under Highway 1 in three locations. However, views of these Project areas from Highway 1 is mostly screened by landscaping adjacent to the highway (see Figure 4.2-6, Photo 15). Where gaps in vegetation occur, views of Project construction areas or the aboveground structures at the Chanticleer Site would be brief as motorists move past Project areas. Aside from Highway 1, there are no state or locally designated scenic vistas in the Project area. Further, given the developed nature of the overall Project area, long-range views of mountain peaks, the ocean, or other features that may be considered a scenic vista are not available in the vicinity of Project locations. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.2-2, Summary of Impacts – Aesthetics. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.2-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – AESTHETICS Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.2-1: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. LS Impact 4.2-2: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Impact Discussion Impact 4.2-1: The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. (Less than Significant) Santa Cruz WWTF Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, Environmental Setting, although the site is located adjacent to Neary Lagoon Park, the Project site itself has low visual quality and is poorly exposed, and is thus considered to have a low visual sensitivity. Construction at this site would last approximately 12 (pump station only) to 36 months (treatment facility), and would involve clearing and grubbing, and facility installation. Construction vehicles, materials, and equipment would temporarily add to the existing WWTF activities, and the additional construction activities may be noticeable and unappealing visual features, as seen by Neary Lagoon Park trail users passing the site. Project construction activities would not be visually noticeable from other areas of Neary Lagoon Park, La Barranca Park, or Bay Street due to trees/vegetation, fencing, and other existing WWTF facilities that block views of the Project site. Once complete, the Project facility would include a small pump station structure and tank, and could also include a two-story treatment facility located along the north edge of the WWTF site (see Figures 3-3 and 3-4), near the adjacent Neary Lagoon Park Trail. The type and scale of the Project facilities would be similar to existing structures at the WWTF. Thus, the Project facility would be visually consistent with and indistinguishable from the backdrop of existing WWTF facilities. The Project facilities would not be visible from other vantage points in Neary Lagoon Park or La Barranca Park, or from Bay Street. Given that the site has low visual quality, exposure, and visual sensitivity and that the type and scale of Project facilities would be consistent with the existing WWTF facilities, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Chanticleer Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Project site itself has low visual quality and is poorly exposed, and is thus considered to have a low visual sensitivity. Views of the existing site are limited by adjacent structures, and an existing fence. Current site use includes parking and construction staging activities. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF Project site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). Construction activities would occur over an approximately 24-month period. While the work area would be fenced during construction, construction vehicles, materials, and equipment would temporarily add to the existing commercial and light industrial activities that occur in the vicinity, and the additional construction activities may be noticeable and unappealing visual features, as seen by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along Soquel and Chanticleer avenues. However, these areas are not scenic in nature and, as noted, is an area of low visual sensitivity. Following construction, the Chanticleer Site would include a process building, canopy covered chemical storage and feed systems, an operations building, pump station, access and parking areas, and other treatment support facilities within a fenced area, with privacy slats included on fencing. A visual simulation, depicting existing site conditions and simulated Project conditions, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics is presented on Figure 4.2-7. The simulated Project conditions are based on preliminary Project designs and landscape plantings at maturity (approximately 10 years after planting); and could be adjusted during final Project design, including details such as landscape planting palette, paint and fencing colors, and some adjustment of building layouts. As shown in the upper photo, views of the Project site are dominated by the existing vacant structure, surrounding fence line, and existing commercial structures along Chanticleer Avenue adjacent to the Project site. Under the Project (lower photo, simulation), landscaping along Soquel Avenue would be installed between the roadway and site fencing. The upper portion of facility structures would be visible; however, proposed building structural design and finishes would be similar to existing commercial residential structures in the vicinity. Thus, the visual character of the Project site, as seen from public vantage points to the north of the site, would be consistent with the existing visual character of the area. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Headquarters-West Annex Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Project site itself has moderate visual quality, with limited and brief exposure, and is thus considered to have a low to moderate visual sensitivity. Views of the existing site are limited by topography and mature trees and landscaping adjacent to the site. Further, the PG&E substation and adjacent Headquarters office structure and parking area provides commercial/light-industrial character as well as substantially blocks views of the site from public vantage points along Soquel Drive. Direct views of the site from public areas are limited to the southern portion of the site, as seen from Capitola Avenue. The site is currently vacant, consisting of grass/groundcover planting and some existing trees, and surrounded by fencing. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF Project site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). While the construction area would be fenced, construction activities would occur over an approximately 24-month period. Construction vehicles, materials, and equipment may be noticeable and unappealing visual features, as seen by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians traveling along Soquel Drive and Capitola Avenue. However, these areas are not scenic in nature and, as noted, is an area of limited visual exposure. Following construction, the Headquarters-West Annex Site would include a process building, chemical storage and feed systems, an operations building, pump station, maintenance shop and storage, lab space, access and parking areas, and other treatment support facilities within a fenced area. Visual simulations, depicting existing site conditions and simulated Project conditions, are presented on Figures 4.2-8 and 4.2-9. Figure 4.2-8 depicts views of the Project site from Aguazul Drive, facing Soquel Drive with the West Annex portion of the site in the background. The simulated Project conditions are based on preliminary Project designs and landscape plantings at maturity (approximately 10 years after planting); and could be adjusted during final Project design, including details such as landscape planting palette, paint and fencing colors, and some adjustment of building layouts. As shown in the upper photo, there is an existing low retaining wall and sloped landscape strip with grasses and mature trees. The upper portion of the Project site is fenced and includes heavy green materials that block views of the interior portion of the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Existing view of Project Site Simulated view of the Project Site SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-7 Chanticleer Site Simulation, from Soquel Ave Existing view of Project Site Simulated view of the Project Site SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-8 Headquarters-West Annex Site Simulation, from Aguazul Drive Existing view of Project Site Simulated view of the Project Site SOURCE: ESA, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.2-9 Headquarters-West Annex Site Simulation, from Capitola Avenue 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics site. Existing mature trees located between the Headquarters parking lot and the West Annex site can be seen beyond the site fencing. Under Project conditions (lower photo, simulation), landscaping along Soquel Drive and the site entrance road would be replaced to include taller shrubs and grasses than currently exists, and planted trees that are intended, at maturity, to be denser and more consistent with existing trees at the Headquarters area. The treatment facility layout includes placement treatment functions that can be fully enclosed in structures towards the northern, Soquel Drive, portion of the West Annex site. Proposed building structural design and finishes would be similar to existing commercial and residential structures in the vicinity. Thus, the visual character of the Project site, as seen from public vantage points to the north of the site, would be consistent with the existing visual character of the area. As shown on Figure 4.2-9, the West Annex portion of the site, as seen from Capitola Drive, consists of a scattering of mature trees and shrubs near the roadway and sidewalk. The northernmost portion of the site, as seen from Capitola Avenue, are blocked by the PG&E substation. Immediate views of the southernmost portion of the site is blocked by the existing green fencing, with limited views of mature trees located along the border between the Headquarters and West Annex portions of the site available in background views. Under the Project, mature trees and an approximately 100-foot-wide section of site adjacent to Capitola Avenue would be retained as undeveloped open space. A row of trees and shrubs would separate the developed facility portion of the site from the undeveloped open space portion. An 8- to 9-foot tall concrete block wall would be added along the southern boundary of the site (replacing an existing 6-foot wood fence). Similar to the northern portion of site, the facility layout primarily includes enclosed structures along the western portion of the site. As noted, these structures are similar in structural design and finishes to existing commercial and residential structures in the vicinity. Thus, the visual character of the Project site, as seen from public vantage points to the west of the site, would be consistent with the existing visual character of the area. Thus, the visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Monterey Avenue Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Monterey Avenue site has low visual quality and is poorly exposed, and is thus considered to have a low visual sensitivity. As noted, the site is located off a narrow private road, and is not visible from public vantage points. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF Project site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). Construction activities would occur over an approximately 18-month period and following construction and site restoration, the recharge well facilities would be similar in scale and type as the existing (decommissioned) groundwater production well currently located at this site. Existing fencing would be retained or replaced. Given that the site has low visual quality, exposure, and visual sensitivity and that the type and scale type of Project facilities would be consistent with the existing groundwater facilities, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Willowbrook Lane Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Willowbrook Lane moderate visual quality, is exposed briefly by motorists and pedestrians along Willowbrook Lane and for lengthier periods by active recreation users at Willowbrook Park’s tennis and basketball courts. The site is thus considered to have a moderate visual sensitivity. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF Project site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). Construction activities would occur over an approximately 18-month period and following construction and site restoration, the recharge well facilities would include a recharge well and backwash pump (5-feet by 5-feet), motor control center (10-feet by 4-feet), and backwash discharge pump (5-feet by 5-feet). The facility could include a 20-foot by 25-foot aboveground equalization tank, which could be approximately 6-feet tall. Much of the site would be paved to support these facilities, with aboveground structures sited at the eastern end of the facility and away from Willowbrook Lane. While the structures and paving would change the character of the site from an undeveloped, landscaped use to a developed site, the structures placed at the eastern end of the site would not be highly noticeable by motorists and pedestrians passing the site along Willowbrook Lane, given the small and narrow layout of the site, with intervening structures on either side of the site. The paved areas along Willowbrook Lane may be noticeable by motorists and pedestrians, but is consistent with the visual character of adjacent areas as the site is between a paved parking area/driveway and tennis court. Views of aboveground features would be available from the tennis and basketball courts; however, as noted in Section 4.2.2, these areas do not include bleachers, benches, or picnic areas that would be associated with more contemplative use as compared to the more active use that occurs in these areas of Willowbrook Park. Given that the type and scale type of Project facilities would not be prominent or inconsistent with the visual character of the area, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Twin Lakes Church Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site has low to moderate visual quality and is poorly exposed, and is thus considered to have a low visual sensitivity. As discussed, the site is mostly screened from public view, with the possible exception of a fleeting view by motorists traveling south along Cabrillo College Drive. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). Construction activities would occur over an approximately 18-month period and following construction and site restoration, the recharge well facilities would include a recharge well and backwash pump, equalization tank, and other small support structures. Aboveground structures would be small, approximately 5-foot by 5-foot and 10-foot by 4-foot structures; with a potential buried storage tank or in-ground basin at the recharge well site along the southern edge of the Project site, within an existing parking lot. The scale of the proposed structures would be small relative to the heights of the adjacent slope and mature vegetation along Cabrillo College Drive, and the parked vehicles and nearby structures among the church complex. As previously noted, the site has historically been used for equipment staging and/or materials storage. Accordingly, the proposed facilities would not be substantially noticeable or inconsistent with the existing visual character of the area; and given past uses and its location among a large parking area, a recharge well would be consistent with past and present Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics uses at this location. Given that the site has low to moderate visual quality, low exposure, and low visual sensitivity and that the type and scale type of Project facilities would not be prominent or inconsistent with the visual character of the area, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Cabrillo College Site As discussed in Section 4.2.2, the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites have low to moderate visual quality and are poorly exposed, and are thus considered to have a low visual sensitivity. As noted, the only portion of the site that is highly visible from public vantage points is a small grassy area immediately adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive, adjacent to two existing parking lots. The visual changes associated with construction of this facility would be similar to that described above for the SC WWTF site (e.g., vehicles, materials, and equipment). Construction activities would occur over an approximately 18-month period and following construction and site restoration, the recharge well facilities would include a recharge well and backwash pump, equalization tank, and other small support structures. Aboveground structures would be small, approximately 5-foot by 5-foot and 10-foot by 4-foot structures; with a potential buried storage tank or in-ground basin at the recharge well site along the southeast edge of the Project site, within an existing maintenance area. Given the small scale of the proposed structures adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive, which would be seen with the existing parking lots and other structures in the background of views, the proposed facilities would not be substantially noticeable or inconsistent with the existing visual character of the area. Recharge well facilities within the existing maintenance area would be consistent with existing uses within that area, and are not visible from public vantage points. Given that the site has low to moderate visual quality, low exposure, and low visual sensitivity and that the type and scale type of Project facilities would not be prominent or inconsistent with the visual character of the area, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The visual character and quality impact associated with this Project site would be less than significant. Pipeline Alignments The proposed pipeline alignments run along and cross streets within the Westside, Boardwalk, and Seabright/Midtown neighborhoods of the City of Santa Cruz, the unincorporated Santa Cruz County communities of Live Oak and Soquel, and the City of Capitola. Views within these areas are dominated by urban development. The open-cut trench method would be used for most of the pipeline construction. This method involves initial delineation and ground-clearing of the work area; grading or pavement cutting; excavation of the trench; placement of the pipe; backfilling of the trench; and restoration of the work surface. The appearance of pipeline construction sites, would include open trenches, soil stockpiles, and heavy construction vehicles and equipment. While pipeline construction sites are likely to be unsightly, similar construction activities are fairly typical of the urban setting and occur periodically for other reasons (such as road improvements or other utility upgrades/maintenance, etc.). Further, the location of the pipeline excavation would advance along pipeline segments as work progresses, generally at a rate of 100 linear feet per day (see Section 3.6.4, Construction Activities, Construction Equipment, and Construction Workforce). Bridge crossings and use of trenchless technologies in limited areas would include similar equipment and activity levels, with work concentrated in a focused work Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics area (rather than moving through a pipeline alignment reach) for up to approximately 10 to 30 working days per crossing. Following construction activities, all construction debris and waste would be removed from sites and disturbed areas would be returned to their approximate pre-construction conditions (see Section 3.6.5, Excavation, Stockpiling of Soils, and Spoils Disposal). Once construction is complete, pipelines would be buried or substantially within the annular space of bridges, and would not be visible; or could be slightly visible where attached to bridges. Given that construction activities would be temporary and fairly typical of the urban setting, and that pipelines would not be visible following completion of construction, impacts on visual character and quality would less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.2-2: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. (Less than Significant) As described in Section 3.6.7, Construction Schedule, the majority of construction activities would occur during normal working hours; weekdays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., and possible on Saturdays between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. However, development of recharge wells would require 24-hour construction for a period of approximately 2 weeks. Accordingly, recharge well staging and drilling would require temporary nighttime lighting for safety and security. Standard construction lighting includes shielding and the ability to focus light downwards towards the work area and away from adjacent areas. Therefore, use of nighttime lighting over a two-week period would not constitute a new source of substantial light or glare. Periodic repairs of recharge well pumps and equipment could also require occasional nighttime work. However, similar to well drilling, the use of nighttime lighting would be for short periods of time, and would include the ability to shield and direct lighting towards the work area and away from adjacent areas. Construction equipment, building materials, and building finishes would consist of dull, nonreflective surfaces, and would not have large glass windows or other reflective materials facing affected viewers. Such building finishes are not substantial sources of glare, such as mirrors, polished metallic surfaces, or windows. The only permanent light source used during operation of the Project would be exterior security lights at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex sites; and motion-sensor activated securing lighting at recharge well sites. The area requiring lighting would be at building entrances and along parking and pathways, which would not be in close vicinity to residences or other land uses that would be sensitive to light and glare. In particular, for the treatment sites, the entrances of structures that could require lighting are oriented towards the center of each site; rather than exterior areas that are closer to other land uses. Further, the security lighting would be in keeping with existing lighting at other nearby commercial and institutional light uses, in addition to roadway lighting. For these reasons, construction and operation of the Project would not constitute a new source of substantial light or glare. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.2 Aesthetics Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.2.5 References – Aesthetics California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Map of Officially Designated Scenic Highways for Santa Cruz County. Updated November 7, 2011. Available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed on February 13, 2018). County of Santa Cruz, 1994. Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program, May 24, 1994. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.2-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality 4.3 Air Quality 4.3.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Project to result in adverse impacts to air quality and sensitive receptors. The analysis is primarily based on Projectrelated assumptions and information provided by the District as well as recommendations for evaluation by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), as identified in its Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (MBUAPCD, 2016), by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), as published in its Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessment (OEHHA, 2015). Comments received during Project scoping relative to Air Quality expressed general concern related to Project construction and operations emissions and Project odors including impacts of wind patterns. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.3.2 Environmental Setting The study area for impacts on air quality is the North Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). Air quality is a function of both the amount and location of pollutant emissions under the influence of meteorological conditions and topographic features that affect pollutant movement and dispersal. Atmospheric conditions such as wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, the presence of sunlight, and air temperature gradients interact with the physical features of the landscape to determine the movement and dispersal of air pollutants, all of which affects air quality. Local Climate and Air Quality Topography and meteorology greatly influence air quality. Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall, and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of air pollutants. Marine breezes from Monterey Bay dominate the climate of this portion of the Air Basin; westerly winds predominate in all seasons, but are strongest and most persistent during the spring and summer. The Air Basin covers 5,159 square miles along the central coast of California and is generally bounded by the Monterey Bay to the west, the Santa Cruz Mountains to the northwest, the Diablo Range on the northeast, with the Santa Clara Valley between them. The southern part of the Santa Clara Valley extends into the northeastern tip of the Air Basin and transitions into the San Benito Valley, which runs northwest-southeast and is bounded on the west by the Gabilan Range. To the west of the Gabilan Range is the Salinas Valley, which extends from the city of Salinas at the northwest end to King City at the southeast end. The western edge of the Salinas Valley is formed by the Sierra de Salinas, which is also the eastern edge of the Carmel Valley. The Santa Lucia Range along the Pacific coast defines the western edge of the Carmel Valley. The mountain ridges in the Air Basin restrict and channel summer onshore air currents. Hot temperatures in the inland valleys warm the ground and intensify onshore airflow during the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality afternoon and evening. In the fall, the surface winds weaken and the marine layer becomes shallow and eventually dissipates. The airflow is occasionally reversed, creating weak offshore winds. A semi-permanent high-pressure cell in the eastern Pacific Ocean is the controlling factor in the climate of the Air Basin. In the summer, the high-pressure cell is dominant and causes persistent west and northwest winds over the entire California coast. Air descends in the Pacific highpressure cell (Pacific High), forming a stable temperature inversion of hot air over a cool coastal layer of air. The onshore air currents pass over cool ocean waters to bring fog and relatively cool air into the coastal valleys. The warmer air aloft can inhibit vertical air movement. The stationary air mass held in place by the Pacific high-pressure cell can allow pollutants to build up over a period of days. These conditions also occur when north or east winds cause pollutant transport from the San Francisco Bay Area or the Central Valley into the Air Basin. In the winter, the Pacific High moves south and has a lesser influence on the Air Basin; wind flows southeasterly from the Salinas and San Benito Valleys, especially during the night and morning. Northwest winds are still dominant in winter, but easterly winds are more frequent in the winter than the summer. Air quality usually remains good in the winter and early spring due to the absence of deep, persistent regional subsidence inversions and the presence of occasional storms. Typically, year-round marine airflow allows coastal areas to maintain good air quality. The Project area typically has average maximum and minimum winter (i.e., January) temperatures of 60 degrees ºF and 39 ºF, respectively, while average summer (i.e., July) maximum and minimum temperatures are 75 ºF and 51 ºF, respectively. The warmest month is typically September, with an average maximum high of 76 ºF. Because of the moderating marine influence, which decreases with distance from the ocean, monthly and annual temperature variations are greatest inland and smallest at the coast. The Project area is along the coast with temperature variations that are relatively moderate. Precipitation in the Project area averages approximately 29 inches per year (WRCC, 2018). The presence and intensity of sunlight is another important factor that affects air pollution. Typically, ozone is formed at higher temperatures. In the presence of ultraviolet sunlight and warm temperatures, reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) react to form secondary photochemical pollutants, including ozone. Since temperatures in many of the Air Basin inland valleys are so much higher than near the coast, these inland areas are much more prone to photochemical air pollution. Criteria Air Pollutants The USEPA has identified criteria air pollutants that are a threat to public health and welfare. These pollutants are called “criteria” air pollutants because standards have been established for each of them to meet specific public health and welfare criteria (see Section 4.3.3, Regulatory Framework, below). Below are descriptions of criteria pollutants that are a concern in the study area. Ozone Ozone is a respiratory irritant and an oxidant that increases susceptibility to respiratory infections and can cause substantial damage to vegetation and other materials. Ozone is not emitted directly Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality into the atmosphere, but is a secondary air pollutant produced in the atmosphere through a complex series of photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx. ROG and NOx are known as precursor compounds for ozone. Significant ozone production generally requires ozone precursors to be present in a stable atmosphere with strong sunlight for approximately three hours. Ozone is a regional air pollutant because it is not emitted directly by sources, but is formed downwind of sources of ROG and NOx under the influence of wind and sunlight. Ozone concentrations tend to be higher in the late spring, summer, and fall, when the long sunny days combine with regional subsidence inversions to create conditions conducive to the formation and accumulation of secondary photochemical compounds, like ozone. Carbon Monoxide Carbon monoxide (CO) is a non-reactive pollutant that is a product of incomplete combustion and is mostly associated with motor vehicle traffic. High CO concentrations develop primarily during winter when periods of light winds combine with the formation of ground level temperature inversions (typically from the evening through early morning). These conditions result in reduced dispersion of vehicle emissions. Motor vehicles also exhibit increased CO emission rates at low air temperatures. When inhaled at high concentrations, CO combines with hemoglobin in the blood and reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood. This results in reduced oxygen reaching the brain, heart, and other body tissues. This condition is especially critical for people with cardiovascular diseases, chronic lung disease, or anemia. Particulate Matter Respirable particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled into air passages and the lungs and can cause adverse health effects. Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fume-producing industrial and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some sources of particulate matter, such as demolition and construction activities, are more local in nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can cause lung damage directly, or can contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that can pose a health risk. Particulates can also damage materials and reduce visibility. Other Criteria Pollutants Sulfur dioxide (SO2) is produced through combustion of sulfur or sulfur-containing fuels such as coal. SO2 is also a precursor to the formation of atmospheric sulfate and particulate matter (both PM10 and PM2.5) and can contribute to sulfuric acid formation in the atmosphere that could precipitate downwind as acid rain. Lead has a range of adverse neurotoxin health effects, and was formerly released into the atmosphere primarily via leaded gasoline. The phase-out of leaded gasoline in California resulted in decreasing levels of atmospheric lead. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are airborne substances that are capable of causing short-term (acute) and/or long-term (chronic or carcinogenic; i.e., cancer-causing) adverse human health Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality effects (i.e., injury or illness). TACs include both organic and inorganic chemical substances. They may be emitted from a variety of common sources including gasoline stations, automobiles, dry cleaners, industrial operations, and painting operations. The current California list of TACs includes approximately 200 compounds, including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) emissions from diesel-fueled engines (CARB, 2011). Existing Air Quality and Basin Attainment Status The MBARD operates a regional monitoring network that measures the ambient air quality in the Air Basin. Existing levels of air pollutants in the Project area can generally be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by MBARD at its closest station. The closest station is the Santa Cruz-2544 Soquel Avenue Monitoring Station, located approximately 2.7 miles northeast of the SC WWTF Site. The Santa Cruz-2544 Soquel Avenue Monitoring Station measures concentrations of ozone PM2.5. Table 4.3-1 shows a five-year (2012–2016) summary of monitoring data for ozone and PM2.5 collected at the Santa Cruz-2544 Soquel Avenue Monitoring Station. The data are compared with the applicable California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As indicated in the table, there were no recorded violations of the State or federal standards from 2012 through 2016. TABLE 4.3-1 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT AREA (2012–2016) Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant* Standard 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.06 0 0 0 0 0 0.052 0.055 0.068 0.060 0.057 0 0 0 0 0 14 19 16 21 13 Ozone Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.09 ppm Days over State Standard Maximum 8-Hour Average (ppm) 0.070 ppm Days over State Standard Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Maximum 24-Hour Average (µg/m3) 35 µg/m3 Estimated Days Over National Standard State Annual Average (µg/m3) 12 µg/m3 0 0 0 0 0 5.8 6.7 5.7 5.2 5.5 NOTES: ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. Emissions data collected at the Santa Cruz-2544 Soquel Avenue Monitoring Station. SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 2018. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed on February 18, 2018. Areas with air quality that exceed federal or State air quality standards are designated as “nonattainment” areas for the relevant air pollutants. Designations are made for each criteria pollutant according to the categories listed below. Designations in relation to State standards are made by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), while designations in relation to national standards are made by the USEPA. State designations are updated annually, while the national designations are updated either when the standards change or when an area requests re- Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality designation due to changes in air quality. Nonattainment designations are of most concern because they indicate that unhealthy levels of the pollutant exist in the area, which typically triggers a need to develop a plan to achieve the applicable standards. The Air Basin as a whole is considered by the USEPA as attainment or unclassified for all regulated criteria pollutants relative to the NAAQS. At the State level, the region is designated as nonattainment-transitional for ozone and nonattainment for PM10. Nonattainment-transitional is designated when, during a single calendar year, the CAAQS is not exceeded more than three times at any one monitoring location within the Air Basin. The region is attainment for all other CAAQS (CARB, 2017). For more on the NAAQS and CAAQS, refer to Section 4.3.3, Regulatory Framework. Sensitive Receptors For the purposes of this air quality and health risk analysis, sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses with population concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from air pollutants associated with Project construction and/or operation. Sensitive receptor land uses generally include schools, day care centers, hospitals, and residential areas. Some sensitive receptors are considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emission sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirm are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Many locations along the various proposed pipeline segments would be adjacent to sensitive receptors, including residences. However, while work associated with AWPF, pumps, and recharge well installation (discussed below) would occur at a single site until completion of the subject Project component, pipeline segments would be installed in a linear sequence and would progress at a rate of 100 feet to 200 feet per day. Accordingly, because pipeline work would only occur in a given location for the duration of that segment’s installation (i.e., no more than 4 weeks), the duration of exposure for any given receptor to pipeline construction-related pollutants would be a small fraction of the time required to complete pipeline construction overall (i.e., up to 36 months). In addition to the proposed pipelines, the District is considering several sites for the installation of a water treatment facility and other sites for installation of recharge wells. Several of these sites are located in close proximity to sensitive receptors. The following paragraphs provide summary descriptions of the sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Project components. For the purposes of air dispersion modeling performed for Project construction activities (see Impact 4.3-4), distances to sensitive receptors are described in terms of distance from the Project site area source boundary to the receptor site. Evaluating emissions impacts from a single point within the interior of the site would not be appropriate for the emission analysis, because project construction would involve multiple mobile emissions sources (e.g., trucks and construction equipment) moving throughout the Project site, rather than concentrated at a single location within the site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility AWPF Sensitive receptors near the sites of the proposed pump station, tertiary treatment areas, and Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) at the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) consist of single-family residences south of Bay Street. These residences are located as close as approximately 300 feet from the southeastern most Project site boundary within the SC WWTF. Chanticleer Site AWPF Sensitive receptors near the Chanticleer Site consist of single-family and multi-family residences along 17th Street and Chanticleer Avenue. The closest sensitive receptors consist of multi-family residences at a distance of 30 feet from the Project site’s southwestern boundary. Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF Sensitive receptors near the AWPF location proposed at the Headquarters-West Annex Site consist of single-family residences south of the Project site and adjacent to Capitola Avenue, Rosedale Avenue, and Soquel Drive. The closest sensitive receptors, which are single-family residences, are within 30 feet of the Project site’s southern boundary. Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the proposed Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site consist of singleand multi-family residences and the Santa Cruz Montessori school. Buildings at the Santa Cruz Montessori school are located approximately 50 feet north of the Project site. The closest residences to the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site are single-family residences located approximately 60 feet west of the Project site. Cabrillo College Recharge Well Site Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site consist of the classrooms and facilities at the Delta Alternative High School, Twin Lakes Christian School, and singlefamily residences to the west, east, and south of the Project site. The closest single-family residences are approximately 1,000 feet to the east. The Children’s Enrichment Center at Twin Lakes Christian School is approximately 430 feet to the west. Delta Alternative High School is approximately 250 feet to the east of the site. Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site consist of the classrooms and facilities at the Delta Alternative High School, and single-family residences. The closest single-family residences are approximately 650 feet to the east. The Children’s Enrichment Center at Twin Lakes Christian School is approximately 1,000 feet west of the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site. Delta Alternative High School is approximately 450 feet north of the site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site consist of the classrooms and facilities at the Delta Alternative High School, the Children’s Enrichment Center at Twin Lakes Christian School, and single-family residences to the west, east, and south of the Project site. The closest single-family residences are approximately 700 feet south of the site. The Children’s Enrichment Center is approximately 235 feet to the west of the site and the closest building associated with the Delta Alternative High School is approximately 500 feet to the east. Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site consist of single- and multifamily residences. The nearest residence to the Project site is a single-family home 30 feet from the Project site’s western boundary. Pipeline Alignments The proposed conveyance system would include the installation of an effluent (source water) pipeline, a brine pipeline, and purified water pipelines. An overview of the conveyance pipeline routes is illustrated on Figure 3-1. The proposed pipeline alignments generally follow disturbed or existing developed road and railroad rights-of-way. Sensitive receptors along the proposed alignments consist of single- and multi-family residences, Santa Cruz High School, Harbor High School, Soquel Elementary School, Twin Lakes Christian School, and Live Oak Elementary School. 4.3.3 Regulatory Framework Federal, State, and regional regulations provide the framework for analyzing and controlling air pollutant emissions and thus general air quality. The USEPA is responsible for implementing the programs established under the federal Clean Air Act, such as establishing and reviewing the NAAQS and reviewing State Implementation Plans (SIPs), described further below. However, the USEPA has delegated the authority to implement many of the federal programs to the states while retaining an oversight role to ensure that the programs continue to be implemented. In California, CARB is responsible for establishing and reviewing the State ambient air quality standards, developing and managing the California SIP, securing approval of this plan from the USEPA, and identifying TACs. CARB also regulates mobile emissions sources in California, such as construction equipment, trucks, and automobiles, and oversees the activities of air quality management districts, which are organized at the county or regional level. The MBARD is the regional agency primarily responsible for regulating stationary emission sources at facilities within its geographic area (i.e., Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties) and for preparing the air quality plans that are required under the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. State and Federal Regulations The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 established the NAAQS, and individual states retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and to include other pollution sources. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality California had already established its own air quality standards when federal standards were established, and because of the unique meteorological problems in California, there are considerable differences between some of the state and federal standards. As shown in Table 4.3-2, the CAAQS tend to be at least as protective as NAAQS, and are often more stringent. TABLE 4.3-2 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND AIR BASIN ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant Attainment Status for California Standard Federal Primary Standard Attainment Status for Federal Standard 0.070 ppm Nonattainment Transitional 0.070 ppm Attainment 1 Hour 0.09 ppm Attainment --- --- 8 Hour 9.0 ppm Attainment 9 ppm Attainment 1 Hour 20 ppm Attainment 35 ppm Attainment Annual Average 0.030 ppm --- 0.053 ppm Attainment 1 Hour 0.18 ppm Attainment 0.100 ppm Unclassified Annual Average --- --- 0.030 ppm Attainment 24 Hour 0.04 ppm Attainment 0.14 ppm Attainment 1 Hour 0.25 ppm Attainment 0.075 ppm Attainment Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 Attainment --- --- 24 Hour 50 µg/m3 Nonattainment 150 µg/m3 Unclassified Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 Attainment 12.0 µg/m3 Unclassified/ Attainment 24 Hour --- --- 35 µg/m3 Attainment 24 Hour 25 µg/m Attainment --- --- --- 1.5 µg/m Attainment --- --- Averaging Time State Standard 8 Hour Ozone Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Sulfates 3 3 Attainment Calendar Quarter --- 30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m 3-Month Rolling Average --- --- 0.15 µg/m3 Unclassified Hydrogen Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm Unclassified No Federal Standard --- Vinyl Chloride 24 Hour 0.010 ppm No information available --- --- Visibility Reducing Particles 8 Hour Extinction of 0.23/km; visibility of 10 miles or more Unclassified No Federal Standard --- Lead 3 NOTES: PPM = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; --- = no applicable standard. SOURCES: California Air Resources Board, 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 4, 2016, obtained online (https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm), February 19, 2018, and California Air Resources Board, 2017. Area Designation Maps for State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, obtained online (https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm), February 18, 2018. Federal ambient air quality standards (federal standards) exist for seven criteria air pollutants: ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. In addition, California has established State Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. The ambient air quality standards are intended to protect public health and welfare, and they specify the concentration of pollutants (with an adequate margin of safety) to which the public can be exposed without adverse health effects. They are designed to protect those segments of the public most susceptible to respiratory distress, referred to as sensitive receptors, including people with asthma, the very young, elderly, people weak from other illness or disease, or people engaged in strenuous work or exercise. Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollution levels that are somewhat above the ambient air quality standards before adverse health effects are observed. Federal Clean Air Act The 1977 Federal Clean Air Act (last amended in 1990; Title 42 United States Code Section 7401 et seq.) requires regional planning and air resource agencies to prepare a regional air quality plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and mobile sources of pollutants will be controlled to achieve all standards within the specified deadlines. The USEPA is responsible for implementing programs developed under the federal Clean Air Act, such as establishing and reviewing the federal standards for CO, ozone, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The federal Clean Air Act also requires the USEPA to designate areas (counties or air basins) as attainment or non-attainment with respect to each criteria pollutant, depending on whether the area meets the federal standards. If an area is designated as non-attainment, it does not meet a federal standard and is required to create and maintain a SIP for achieving compliance with the applicable federal standard. Conformity to the SIP is defined under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments as conformity with the plan’s purpose in eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the federal standards and achieving expeditious attainment of these standards. The Clean Air Act General Conformity Rule helps states improve air quality in areas that do not attain the federal standards by ensuring that federal actions conform to the SIP. If the Project would result in a federal action it would not be subject to the General Conformity Rule because it would be located in an area that meets federal standards and the area is not applicable to a maintenance plan with conformity requirements. 1 California Clean Air Act The California Clean Air Act was approved in 1988 and requires each local air district in the state to prepare an air quality plan to achieve compliance with the State standards. CARB is the agency delegated responsibility for preparing and submitting the SIP to the USEPA. CARB also oversees air quality policies in California and has established State standards for NO2, CO, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, ozone, lead, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. 1 The Phase 1 final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone standard was published on April 30, 2004. The anti-backsliding provisions in that rule set forth specific requirements for areas that are designated attainment for the 8-hour Ozone standard and that were at the time of the 8-hour designations (generally June 15, 2004) either attainment areas with maintenance plans for the 1-hour standard, such as the Air Basin; or nonattainment for the 1-hour standard. Specifically, 40 CFR part 51, section 51.905(a)(3) and (4) requires these areas to submit a maintenance plan under section 110(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act. That maintenance plan must demonstrate maintenance for 10 years postdesignation; however, this maintenance plan does not carry with it any conformity obligations (unlike maintenance plans required under Section 175A of the Act). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Similar to the USEPA, CARB designates counties or air basins in California as attainment or nonattainment with respect to the CAAQS. Regulations for Mobile Sources of Air Pollutants The following air quality regulations apply to mobile sources and are directly relevant to the Project. On road vehicles with a gross vehicular weight rating of 10,000 pounds or greater shall not idle for longer than five minutes at any location (Title 13 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 2485). This restriction does not apply when vehicles remain motionless during traffic or when vehicles are queuing. Off-road equipment engines shall not idle for longer than 5 minutes (Title 13 CCR Section 2449(d)(3)). Exceptions to this rule include: idling when queuing; idling to verify that the vehicle is in safe operating condition; idling for testing, servicing, repairing or diagnostic purposes; idling necessary to accomplish work for which the vehicle was designed (such as operating a crane); and idling required to bring the machine to operating temperature as specified by the manufacturer. Regional and Local Monterey Bay Air Resources District The MBARD (known as the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District until early 2017) is the regional agency responsible for air quality regulation within the Air Basin. The MBARD regulates air quality through its planning and review activities. The MBARD has permit authority over most types of stationary emission sources and can require stationary sources to obtain permits, impose emission limits, set fuel or material specifications, and establish operational limits to reduce air emissions. The MBARD regulates new or expanding stationary sources of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. State law assigns local air districts the primary responsibility for control of air pollution from stationary sources, under CARB’s oversight. The MBARD is responsible for developing regulations governing emissions of air pollution, permitting and inspecting stationary sources of air pollution, monitoring of ambient air quality, and air quality planning activities, including implementation of transportation control measures. The MBARD does not regulate the emissions of dust and other construction emissions, except to require that each project’s relevant CEQA document quantify the emissions of particulate matter and provide mitigation, if the relevant threshold of significance is exceeded. Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region In 1991, the MBARD adopted the Air Quality Management Plan for the Monterey Bay Region in response to the California Clean Air Act of 1988, which established specific planning requirements to meet the ozone standards. The California Clean Air Act requires that air quality management plans be updated every three years. The MBARD has updated the air quality management plan seven times. The most recent update, the 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (2012-2015 AQMP) was adopted in 2017. The 2012-2015 AQMP relies on a multi-level partnership of federal, State, regional, and local governmental agencies. These agencies, including USEPA, CARB, local governments, Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) and the MBARD, are the primary agencies that implement the air quality management Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality plan programs. The MBARD’s focus continues to be on achieving the 8-hour ozone CAAQS, as the region has already attained the 1-hour standard. The 2012-2015 AQMP builds on information developed in past air quality management plans. Consequently, some sections of the 2008 AQMP and 2012 Triennial Plan are incorporated by reference for those elements that have not been updated; however, due to continued progress toward attaining the 8-hour ozone standard, the 2012-2015 AQMP recommends that control measures presented in the 2008 AQMP continue not to be implemented (MBARD, 2017). County of Santa Cruz General Plan The County of Santa Cruz General Plan outlines several guiding policies relevant to air quality. The following air quality policy from the County of Santa Cruz General Plan (County of Santa Cruz, 1994) would be relevant to Project. Policy 5.18.1: New Development. Ensure new development projects are consistent at a minimum with the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District [now known as the MBARD] Air Quality Management Plan and review such projects for potential impact on air quality. City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan The City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan presents several guiding policies relevant to air quality. The following policies from the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan (City of Santa Cruz, 2012) would be relevant to the Project. Policy HZ2.2.1: Require future development projects to implement applicable Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) [now known as MBARD] control measure and/or air quality mitigations in the design of new projects as set forth in the District’s “CEQA Guidelines.” Policy HZ2.2.6: Support MBUAPCD [now known as MBARD] air pollution control strategies, air quality monitoring and enforcement activities. City of Capitola General Plan The City of Capitola General Plan outlines several guiding policies relevant to air quality. The following air quality policy from the City of Capitola General Plan (City of Capitola, 2014) would be relevant to Project. Policy OSC-3.3: Best Management Practices. Encourage development projects to implement best management practices that reduce air pollutant emissions associated with the construction and operation of the project. 4.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on the environment with respect to air quality if it would: • Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality • Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation; • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under a federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors); • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or • Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The MBARD has adopted two different sets of CEQA guidelines: Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (2016 guidelines) for the MBARD’s implementation of CEQA as a lead or responsible agency (MBUAPCD, 2016), and CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (2008 guidelines) that provide guidance for lead agencies that prepare project-specific CEQA documentation for projects within the air district (MBUAPCD, 2008). The 2016 guidelines establish criteria pollutant significance thresholds for construction emissions, which were not included in the 2008 guidelines. Although the MBARD is not the lead agency for the environmental review of the Project, due to the amount of Project-related construction activities that would occur within the Air Basin, the District, as lead agency, has determined that the criteria pollutant mass emissions significance thresholds identified in the MBARD’s 2016 guidelines are appropriate to evaluate the regional air quality impacts that would be associated with the Project. The 2016 guidelines state that a project would not have a significant air quality effect on the environment if construction or operation of the project would emit less than 137 pounds per day of NOx or ROG, 82 pounds per day of PM10, 55 pounds per day of PM2.5, or 550 pounds per day of CO. The MBARD also considers temporary emissions of a carcinogenic TAC that can result in a hazard index greater than 1 for acute or chronic impacts and/or a cancer risk greater than 10 incidents per population of 1,000,000 to be significant (MBUAPCD, 2016). Approach to Analysis Evaluation of potential impacts on air quality from construction and operation of the Project included reviewing relevant regulatory guidelines, characterizing the existing air quality environment throughout the Project area, and estimating pollutant emissions from construction and operation of Project facilities. Individual and cumulative impacts were assessed by comparing the MBARD significance thresholds to estimated levels of pollutant emissions (for discussion of cumulative air quality impacts, refer to Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts). The following discussions provide an overview of the approach to analysis for air quality impacts. Violate a Standard or Contribute to a Violation Construction Emissions For the purposes of this evaluation, the NOx significance threshold represents emissions of all oxides of nitrogen, including NO2. Given the low ambient levels of SO2 and lead in the Air Basin, as evidenced by the region’s status as attainment of SO2 and lead NAAQS and CAAQS, short- Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality term construction-related SO2 and lead emissions associated with the Project would not be expected to result in significant effects and were not assessed. Off-road equipment exhaust and vehicle trip emissions (both exhaust and fugitive dust) were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod v2016.3.2), with assumptions for construction equipment inventories and use rates, haul truck and vehicle trips, and construction phasing developed by the District’s engineering consultant for this EIR analysis. It is assumed that each piece of equipment associated with construction activities at the SC WWTF Site, the Chanticleer Site, or the Headquarters West Annex Site, the recharge well sites, and the pipelines would operate for an average of 1 to 8 hours per day, depending on the equipment type. There is an exception relative to the drill rigs that would be required to excavate the recharge and monitoring wells, which would operate 24 hours per day for up to 2 weeks per site. The most conservative daily trip rates for each Project component would be up to 40 oneway worker auto trips per day and up to 294 one-way haul truck trips per day. CalEEMod default trip lengths of 10.8 miles and 20.0 miles per worker trips and haul truck trips, respectively, were used to estimate the on-road vehicle emissions. These default trip rates are reasonable averages for the Project given that it is assumed the majority of one-way trips would be localized trips and a smaller portion would be to farther destinations, such as landfills. Emission factors and process information from AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (USEPA, 2006) and the CalEEMod emissions model results were used to calculate fugitive dust emissions from Project-related on-site construction activities. Maximum daily fugitive dust emissions were evaluated for the following activities: general site preparation and earthmoving at the SC WWTF Site, the Chanticleer Site or the Headquarters West Annex Site, and the recharge well sites; and soil handling associated with up to 400 feet per day of trenching for pipeline installation (assuming pipeline installation rates of up to 200 feet per day and simultaneous pipeline construction activities at two separate locations). For general site preparation and earth-moving activities, a conservative fugitive dust emission rate of 20 pounds of PM10 per acre graded per day was used (CARB, 2002). It is assumed that a total of up to 0.9 acre of ground disturbance would occur at the SC WWTF, 0.6 acre of ground disturbance would occur at the Chanticleer or the Headquarters-West Annex Site, and 0.1 acre of ground disturbance would occur at each of the recharge well sites. Fugitive dust that would be associated with pipeline trench excavation activities was estimated using emission factors of 0.001 pound PM10 and 0.0002 pound per PM2.5 per cubic yard material handled based on the truck loading emission factor formula used by CalEEMod. PM2.5 fractions for soil disturbance activities developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) were used to estimate PM2.5 fugitive dust emissions that would be associated with site preparation activities (SCAQMD, 2006). Operational Emissions The Project would not include any new or modified stationary sources of air pollutants. Longterm daily emissions that would be associated with the Project would be limited to vehicle trips associated with six additional commuting workers. From an air quality perspective, these trips would be negligible, and would generate well under 1 pound per day for each of the criteria pollutants and precursors. Periodic maintenance could include the removal or repair of pumps, valves, and other equipment. Occasional inspections and repairs of pipelines by small work crews Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality would also be required along the pipeline segments. For these reasons, operational emissions are addressed qualitatively in this EIR. Consistency with Air Quality Plans Any project that could conflict with the MBARD’s goal of attaining the State 8-hour ozone standard would be considered to conflict with the intent of the 2012-2015 AQMP. The measures for determining whether a project would conflict with the intent of the 2012-2015 AQMP is consistency with the CEQA mass emissions thresholds of significance for NOx and ROG, and/or whether a project would contribute to population growth not accounted for in the 2012-2015 AQMP. If the CEQA thresholds of significance are exceeded, or if the Project would result in population growth not accounted for the 2012-2015 AQMP, then the Project would be considered to conflict with the intent of the 2012-2015 AQMP and the associated impact would be significant. Impacts on Sensitive Receptors Construction of the Project would result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions from on-site heavy-duty equipment and from material deliveries and hauling of excess spoils and debris that would pose a potential cancer and chronic health risk. These risks would primarily result when construction activities would be located in close proximity to sensitive receptors for an extended duration. Construction of several components of the Project would be 10 months to 3 years. Pipeline construction activities would proceed linearly at a rate of 100 feet to 200 feet per day, which would limit the duration of exposure for any given receptor. Due to the durations of the associated required construction activities at any given receptor, the non-pipeline sites (Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, and the four recharge well sites) would pose the highest health risks to nearby sensitive receptors. A screening-level health risk assessment (HRA) was conducted to estimate the health risk impact associated with Project construction at these sites (see Appendix B). The methods and assumptions used in the HRA are consistent with the guidance recommended by OEHHA’s Air Toxic Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines (2015). In absence of specific HRA guidelines from the MBARD, the HRA also follows the approach recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards (2012) and the BAAQMD’s Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment Guidelines (2016). The OEHHA methodology used in this assessment applies a dose-response assessment to characterize risk of cancer due to inhaled TACs. Based on the OEHHA guidance, the evaluation of potential health risks uses the following standard four-step risk assessment process: 1. hazard identification; 2. exposure assessment; 3. dose-response assessment; and 4. risk characterization. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality The hazard identification process is undertaken to determine what TACs would potentially be present in the assessment area, and if present, identifies what the pollutants of concern are along with their potential adverse health effects. In this HRA, the primary hazard is DPM emissions from operation of off-road construction equipment. The degree of sensitive receptor exposure to DPM from Project construction activities was evaluated under the exposure assessment portion of the HRA. This assessment involves the quantification of DPM emissions and dispersion modeling. The amount of DPM emissions generated by construction activities was determined using PM10 from diesel exhaust as a surrogate. The PM10 construction emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod model. Emission rates from construction activities were based on the anticipated hours of activity at each Project site and other information as described in the HRA. A total emission rate in terms of grams per second was calculated for each Project site to multiply with the AERSCREEN dispersion factors to estimate actual concentrations that would be associated with each site. The maximum concentrations were converted to cancer and chronic health risk factors using the health risk assessment guidance issued by OEHHA and the anticipated construction durations for each of the Project sites. For detailed discussion of the four-step HRA process and associated assumptions, refer to Appendix B. Operation of the Project would result in negligible long-term on-site TAC emissions related to off-site vehicle trips, thereby limiting the associated potential public health risk exposure for sensitive receptors; therefore, the health risk analysis in this EIR focuses on short-term construction activities of the Project. Impact Summary A summary of potential impacts on air quality is presented in Table 4.3-3. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.3-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – AIR QUALITY Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.3-1: The Project could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants that could contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard during construction. Impact 4.3-2: The Project would not generate a long-term increase of criteria pollutant emissions during operations. LSM LS Impact 4.3-3: Project construction activities could conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan. LSM Impact 4.3-4: Project construction could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. LSM Impact 4.3-5: The Project would not be expected to create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Impact Discussion Impact 4.3-1: The Project could generate emissions of criteria air pollutants that could contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard during construction. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project construction would involve the use of a variety of off-road diesel-fueled equipment, including graders, backhoes, excavators, and loaders, among others, that would emit exhaust containing air pollutants. Fugitive dust would also be generated by on-site ground disturbing and material handling activities. In addition, construction haul trucks and workers’ vehicles would generate exhaust and fugitive dust (e.g., dust entrainment from road travel) emissions off site. The air pollutant emissions would be generated at various construction sites throughout Santa Cruz County. The District is considering Project configurations that could involve one or more of the following three sites: the SC WWTF Site, Chanticleer Site, and Headquarters-West Annex Site. Among these sites, five potential treatment configurations are evaluated, as follows: 1. A new tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF Site, coupled with an AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or 2. A new tertiary treatment system at the SC WWTF Site, coupled with an AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of the tertiary effluent; or 3. A new AWPF at the Chanticleer Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF; or 4. A new AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF Site; or 5. A new AWPF at the SC WWTF Site for advanced purification of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF. In addition to the proposed water treatment facilities discussed above, each of the five proposed configurations would also include the development of recharge and monitoring wells at up to three sites (i.e., the Willowbrook Lane, Monterey Avenue, Twin Lakes Church, Cabrillo College North, and/or Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Sites) and installation of up to 11 miles of pipeline. The most conservative scenario for daily emissions assumes one of the water treatment facilities would be constructed concurrently with wells at one of the well recharge sites and with pipeline construction activities at two separate locations. Below are the emission estimates summaries and impact determination associated with the most conservative Project scenario. Assumptions used to estimate construction emissions associated with each of the Project configurations are summarized in the Approach to Analysis discussion above, and are presented in detail in Appendix B. As described above, the Project would include advanced purification facilities at the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, or the SC WWTF Site. While onsite construction emissions that would be generated at each of the water treatment facility sites would be similar, construction associated with the Chanticleer Site would require a substantially higher number of daily material and debris truck haul trips (i.e., 112 one-way trips per day) compared to construction that would Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality be associated with the Headquarter-West Annex Site or the SC WWTF Site (i.e., 24 and 48 oneway trips per day, respectively). Therefore, construction of the AWPF for advanced purification of tertiary effluent at the Chanticleer Site would result in the most overall emissions out of all the water treatment facility options. The most conservative daily emissions scenario includes simultaneous construction activities at the Chanticleer Site, one of the recharge well sites, and at two pipeline sites. A summary of the estimated maximum daily construction emissions is presented in Table 4.3-4. TABLE 4.3-4 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY) Project Emissions (pounds/day) Project Component ROG NOx CO PM10 PM2.5 Chanticleer AWPF 2.56 56.35 20.32 14.54 3.79 Recharge Well 2.31 28.33 16.74 3.82 1.51 Pipelines 8.13 157.94 70.87 13.05 5.26 13.00 242.62 107.93 31.41 10.56 Total MBARD Significance Threshold 137 137 550 82 55 Significant Impact? No Yes No No No SOURCE: ESA, 2018. See Appendix B. As shown in Table 4.3-4, maximum daily construction emissions of NOx would be approximately 243 pounds per day, which would exceed the MBARD’s significance threshold of 137 pounds per day, resulting in a significant impact related to the potential to cause a violation of an ozone and/or NO2 ambient air quality standard. Emissions of ROG, CO, PM10, and PM2.5 would not exceed the MBARD’s respective significance criteria; therefore, impacts associated with these pollutants would be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a (Construction Emissions Reduction Plan) and 4.3-1b (Idling Restrictions) would reduce maximum construction-related emissions of NOx to less than the 137 pounds-per-day significance threshold. 2 The maximum daily emission reductions would occur as a result of Project component phasing modifications and the potential use of off-road construction equipment that would meet USEPA’s most stringent emissions standards for NOx. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation. 2 As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to inform and support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the selected sites would be known and the design could progress to a more advanced level. At that time, the District (or the District’s contractor) would prepare the Construction Emissions Reduction Plan, based upon the site- and design-specific information. As the Construction Emissions Reduction Plan primarily concerns implementation phasing and/or the availability of high-tiered off-road construction equipment at the time of the construction period, to prepare the Plan before the final Project siting and design has been determined and prior to when the availability of construction equipment is known would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Construction Emissions Reduction Plan. The District (and/or its construction contractor(s)) shall develop and implement a Construction Emissions Reduction Plan to substantiate that Project construction- related NOx emissions would not exceed the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD)’s significance threshold of 137 pounds per day. The plan shall identify a feasible approach to reduce daily emissions that includes limits on the amount of construction activity that shall be conducted simultaneously on any given day, and if necessary to reduce emissions to below the NOx significance threshold, include a commitment for certain diesel-fueled off-road construction equipment of more than 50 horsepower to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Tier 4 emission standards. The plan shall identify the parameters for phasing construction activities associated with each of the Project components to reduce daily construction emissions of NOx. For example, limiting daily construction activities to activities at one pipeline site and at either the Chanticleer Site or at one of the well sites would be sufficient to reduce NOx emissions to less than 137 pounds per day. In addition, although off-road construction equipment at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites would be required to meet USEPA Tier 4 emission standards or otherwise be equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters per requirements of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4, the Construction Emissions Reduction Plan may include an additional commitment to use a certain percentage of Tier 4 compliant equipment associated with pipeline construction. The identified construction phasing parameters and the percentage of Tier 4 compliant equipment associated with pipeline construction would be substantiated within the Plan to define how the resulting emissions would be less than 137 pounds NOx per day using either the air emissions calculations prepared for the Environmental Impact Report or other air emissions calculations estimated using the CalEEMod emissions model. If the Plan includes a commitment that a certain percentage of pipeline-related off-road equipment would be Tier 4 compliant, then it shall identify the initial pipeline construction equipment listing with each off-road unit’s horsepower, certified tier specification status, and the associated maximum daily NOx emissions. As new or replacement construction equipment are required, the District shall document each unit’s horsepower, certified engine tier status, and associated maximum daily NOx emissions, consistent with the Plan prior to use on the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions. To ensure that idling time for on road vehicles with a gross vehicular weight rating of 10,000 pounds or greater does not exceed the five-minute limit established in Section 2485 of Title 13 CCR Section 2485, and that idling time for off-road engines does not exceed the five minute-limit established in Title 13 CCR Section 2449(d)(3), the District and/or its construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement a written idling policy and distribute it to all equipment operators. Clear signage of these requirements shall be provided for construction workers at all access points to construction areas. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.3-2: The Project would not generate a long-term increase of criteria pollutant emissions during operations. (Less than Significant) Operation of the Project would rely on electrical power supplied by Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) via Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)’s existing regional power grid. It is generally not possible to determine the exact generation source(s) of electricity on the power grid that would supply the Project, or whether the electricity would be generated within the Air Basin. Therefore, indirect emissions of criteria pollutants associated with electricity use from the regional power grid are not addressed in this air quality analysis, because it would be speculative and impractical/impossible to do so. The Project would not include any new or modified stationary sources of air pollutants. The only daily emission sources that would be associated with the Project would be limited to on-road vehicles. Mobile emission sources would include the daily commute trips of up to six facility operators and support personnel. It is estimated that these activities would result in approximately 16 light-duty one-way automobile trips. Emissions associated with these trips would be negligible (i.e., well under 1 pound per day for each of the criteria pollutants and precursors) and would not exceed the MBARD significance thresholds. The operational impact related to the potential for the Project to cause a violation of an ambient air quality standard would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.3-3: Project construction activities could conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The most recently adopted air quality plan for the Project area is the 2012-2015 AQMP. The 2012-2015 AQMP documents the MBARD’s progress toward attaining the State 8-hour ozone standard. Any project that could conflict with the MBARD’s goal of attaining the State 8-hour ozone standard would be considered to conflict with the intent of the 2012-2015 AQMP. The Project would not contribute to population growth not accounted for in the 2012-2015 AQMP. Therefore, to determine whether construction of the Project would conflict with the intent of the 2012-2015 AQMP, construction emissions were compared to the MBARD thresholds for the ozone precursors NOx and ROG. As presented in the Impact 4.3-1 discussion, the Project-related short-term construction emissions associated with all five configurations would exceed the significance threshold for NOx, representing a significant impact related to the potential to cause a violation of an ozone and/or NO2 ambient air quality standard. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-1a and 4.3-1b, construction-related NOx emissions would be reduced to less than the significance threshold (see Impact 4.3-1, above); therefore, the Project would not conflict with the primary Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality goal of the 2012-2015 AQMP, and the impact associated with conflicting or obstructing implementation of the applicable air quality plan would be less than significant with mitigation. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1a: Construction Emissions Reduction Plan. (see Impact 4.3-1, above, for description.) Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b applies to all Project components. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions. (see Impact 4.3-1, above, for description.) Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.3-4: Project construction could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction of the Project would result in the short-term generation of DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment. These emissions could result in the short-term exposure of local sensitive receptors to TACs (i.e., DPM). As mentioned in the Approach to Analysis discussion, a screening-level HRA was conducted to estimate the health risk impact that would be associated with construction of the Project. Table 4.3-5 summarizes the results of the HRA, including the maximum cancer risks and chronic health risks that would be associated with construction of the Project components. As shown in Table 4.3-5, the maximum cancer and non-cancer risks from Project-related DPM construction emissions exposure to nearby sensitive receptors varies by Project site. The maximum non-cancer risk would not exceed the significance threshold for construction at any of the Project sites, however, the maximum cancer risk would be approximately 104 in one million associated with construction at the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Construction at each of the Project sites, with the exceptions of the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site and the Cabrillo College North and South Recharge Well Sites, would result in a cancer risk that would exceed the significance threshold. The associated construction-phase health risk impact is considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 (Equipment with Tier 4 Engines), which would require that all off-road construction equipment at the Project sites mentioned above have engines that meet USEPA’s most stringent emission standards for particulate matter or are otherwise equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters, would reduce maximum constructionrelated emissions of DPM due to construction at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites to levels that would reduce the associated cancer risk impacts to less than significant with mitigation. Refer to Table 4.3-6 for the mitigated cancer risks associated with Project construction. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality TABLE 4.3-5 MAXIMUM HEALTH RISK FOR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS FROM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Maximum Cancer Risk (# in one million) a Maximum Non-Cancer Risk (Chronic Hazard Index) a Chanticleer Site 53.7 0.04 Headquarters-West Annex Site 104.0 0.08 Construction Site SC WWTF Site 10.7 – 33.9b 0.02 Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site 52.0 0.12 Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site 65.3 0.15 Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site 2.0 0.02 Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site 1.3 0.02 Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site 2.3 0.01 Significance Thresholds 10.0 1.0 Exceeds Threshold? Yes No NOTES: a Health risks for each site were not added to determine total risk, because sensitive receptors are unique to each individual site. There are no individual sensitive receptors that are within 1,000 feet of more than one construction site (i.e. all sites are at least 2,000 feet apart). b Risk varies by configuration. Configurations 1 and 2 would result in 10.7 in one million cancer risk, Configurations 3 and 4 would result in 19.8 in one million cancer risk, and Configuration 5 would result in 33.9 in one million cancer risk. Health risk calculations are provided in Appendix B. TABLE 4.3-6 MAXIMUM HEALTH RISK FOR SENSITIVE RECEPTORS FROM CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS – AFTER IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION Maximum Cancer Risk (# in one million)a Construction Site Chanticleer Site 2.5 Headquarters-West Annex Site 4.8 0.5 – 1.9b SC WWTF Site Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site 3.6 Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site 4.5 Significance Threshold 10.0 Exceeds Threshold? No NOTES: a Health risks for each site were not added to determine total risk, because sensitive receptors are unique to each individual site. There are no individual sensitive receptors that are within 1,000 feet of more than one construction site (i.e. all sites are at least 2,000 feet apart). b Risk varies by configuration. Configurations 1 and 2 would result in 0.5 cancer risk, Configurations 3 and 4 would result in 0.9 cancer risk, and Configuration 5 would result in 1.9 cancer risk. Health risk calculations are provided in Appendix B. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.3-4 would apply to all on-site construction activities at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites. Mitigation Measure 4.3-4: Equipment with Tier 4 Engines. The District (and/or its construction contractor(s)) shall ensure that any Project-related diesel-powered equipment used during construction activities at the Chanticleer, Headquarters-West Annex, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well, and/or Monterey Avenue Recharge Well sites have engines that meet USEPA-certified Tier 4 standards or are otherwise equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.3-5: The Project would not be expected to create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. (Less than Significant) Construction Construction activities that would be associated with the Project could result in temporary odors from use of diesel-fueled equipment. These odors would dissipate quickly, and therefore not be concentrated enough for sufficiently long periods of time to create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant. Operations Operation of the pumps, pipelines, and the recharge wells would not generate odorous emissions, because they would be closed systems. The chemical storage and chemical feed facilities at the AWPF site would also be closed systems that would not generate any odorous emissions. With respect to purification process, there would be no objectionable smells/odor, because it would not involve handling of raw/untreated wastewater. Furthermore, as mentioned above, the AWPF would be completely pressurized and closed to the atmosphere. The only Project component whose normal operations would have potential odor generation is the spoils area proposed at the Headquarters-West Annex Site. At this facility, the District would air dry wet dirt, soil, or mud, which would then be off-hauled for reuse or disposal. While odors can be emitted from soil when decomposing matter is present, this would not be the case at the Headquarters-West Annex Site, because of the source of the spoils (i.e., excavated material from water main and service line repairs, and from cleaned out meter boxes) are not typically comprised of decomposing material. For these reasons, the Project would not create objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of people. The impact would be less than significant Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality 4.3.5 References – Air Quality Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards, May 2012. BAAQMD, 2016. BAAQMD Air Toxics NSR Program Health Risk Assessment (HRA) Guidelines, January 2016. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2002. Miscellaneous Processes/Construction and Demolition, Section 7.7, Building Construction Dust. Revised September 2002. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/areasrc/fullpdf/full7-7.pdf. Accessed on February 20, 2018. CARB, 2011. Toxic Air Contaminant Identification List, July 2011. Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/id/taclist.htm. Accessed on February 18, 2018. CARB, 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 4, 2016. Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed on February 19, 2018. CARB, 2017. Area Designation Maps for State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Available at https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed on February 18, 2018. CARB, 2018. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/. Accessed on February 18, 2018. City of Capitola, 2014. Capitola General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2014. City of Santa Cruz, 2012. City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan, Chapter 8, Hazards, Safety, and Noise. County of Santa Cruz, 1994. County of Santa Cruz General Plan Chapter 5: Conservation and Open Space, May 24, 1994. Monterey Bay Air Resources District, 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan, Adopted March 15, 2017. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, revised February 2008. MBUAPCD, 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Adopted 1996. Revised February 2016. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, adopted February, 2015. Available at http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/ hotspots2015.html. Accessed on June 21, 2016. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2006. Final –Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds, October 2006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.3 Air Quality Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2018. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Santa Cruz (047916), period of Record: 01/01/1893 to 06/09/2016. Available at https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7916. Accessed on February 18, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.3-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.1 Introduction This section of the Draft EIR addresses the potential biological impacts related to the Project. This section identifies the existing biological resources within the study area, which includes the Project facility sites (including the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility ocean discharge pipeline outfall) as well as a 50-foot potential impact buffer; identifies the federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to biological resources within the region; and, describes the Project’s impacts on those biological resources as well as mitigation measures to reduce Project-related potentially significant impacts. This setting discussion provides a summary description of biological resources occurring on and around the Project site, including identification of any special-status species that have the potential to occur. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Biological Resources generally concern the Project’s impacts on wildlife and habitat with special consideration given to the impacts of noise, and descriptions of relevant jurisdictional agencies. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. The environmental setting and impacts associated with groundwater recharge operations, such as potential impacts on waters resources with hydrologic connection to the groundwater basin, are discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater. Effects on biological resources associated with hydrologic connection to the groundwater basin are summarized in this section. The study area evaluated includes the Project construction footprint as well as surrounding areas with biological resources that have the potential to experience secondary environmental impacts (e.g., noise and visual disturbance, sediment loading, etc.). Biological resources were identified and potential effects evaluated based upon research and compilation of existing information about the natural resources in the study area, as well as field reconnaissance surveys. The evaluation of biological resources is based on site visits by Environmental Science Associates (ESA) biologists on December 1, 2, and 21, 2016, and September 18, 2017; interpretation of satellite imagery; a review of vegetation communities, wildlife habitats, and jurisdictional “waters of the United States” that occur or potentially occur in the study area, and a review of environmental documents for the vicinity (ESA, 2018; Alley, 2016; Kittleson, 2015; Alley, 2004; Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, 2002; Kobernus, 1998). Additional sources for the analysis included the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], 1 2017, 2018; California Native Plant Society [CNPS], 2018a, 2018b; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], 2018a, 2018b; and the California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG], 2010, 2009. 1 The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) changed its name on January 1, 2013 to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In this document, references to literature published by CDFW prior to Jan. 1, 2013 are cited as ‘CDFG, [year]’. The agency is otherwise referred to by its new name, CDFW. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Information on marine communities, plant and animal species, and sensitive biological resources used in the preparation of this section was obtained from regional databases including information available from Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) (MBNMS, 2018a-e) environmental impact assessments prepared for other regional projects (MCRMA, 2017, SWCA/MBNMS, 2014), and scientific publication articles relevant to the study area. In addition, the following local plans that pertain to the study area were reviewed: • Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program • Santa Cruz County Code Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Protection • County of Santa Cruz Tree Ordinance • City of Santa Cruz General Plan • City of Santa Cruz Tree Ordinance • City of Santa Cruz Draft Habitat Conservation Plan • Twin Lakes State Beach General Plan • Aptos Village Plan • Capitola General Plan • Soquel Village Plan 4.4.2 Environmental Setting This section describes the environmental setting with respect to biological resources. Regional Setting Terrestrial and Freshwater Environment The terrestrial and freshwater portion of the Project is located within the Central California Coast Bioregion, which has a Mediterranean climate with hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. This region includes marine, freshwater and terrestrial resources from the Santa Cruz Mountains on the north to Point Conception on the south. The edge of the continental shelf forms the western boundary; on the east, the region borders the Central Valley Bioregion. The region is characterized by rugged northwest-to-southeast trending mountain ranges including the Santa Cruz Mountains, Santa Lucia Ranges, San Rafael Mountains, Diablo Range, Gabilan Range and Temblor Range. These mountains are separated by a series of valleys, including the Santa Clara, Salinas and Santa Maria River valleys. Familiar coastal landmarks include San Francisco Bay, Monterey Bay, Big Sur, and Morro Bay. Notable interior landmarks include Mt. Diablo, San Benito Mountain, and the Carrizo Plain. The study area is in the largely developed flatlands of Santa Cruz County, within 2 miles of the Pacific Ocean coastline. The study area is predominantly urban, characterized by mostly residential and commercial development, interspersed with patches of more naturalistic undeveloped areas primarily along major drainages and riparian corridors. Although the study area is within an urban area, Project facilities are proposed near more than a dozen stream corridors. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Marine Environment The marine (deep water) portion of the study area is located approximately one mile off the Santa Cruz coast, within the MBNMS, which was designated as a federally protected area in 1992. MBNMS is managed by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) and includes coastal waters from Marin to Cambria. Offshore marine areas include a variety of habitats that support extensive marine life. The highly productive biological communities of Monterey Bay host one of the highest levels of marine biodiversity in the world. Habitat Types and Associated Wildlife Species A vegetation community is a recognizable collection of plant species that interact with each other and the elements of their environment, and are distinct from adjacent vegetation communities (Holland, 1986). The terrestrial plant community classification presented in this assessment is based on field observations and the Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986). Plant communities generally correlate with wildlife habitat types. Wildlife habitats were typically classified and evaluated using the A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). Vegetation communities in the study area include: • Barren/Ruderal • Coastal Terrace Prairie • Landscaped • Fresh Emergent Wetland • Eucalyptus Woodland • • Oak Woodland North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River • Mixed Riparian Woodland • Pelagic (Open Water) Habitat • Riverine • Benthic (Sea Floor) Habitat Developed, barren, and landscaped habitats are not natural vegetation communities per se, as they lack natural vegetation, but are used in this analysis to describe areas that cannot be classified as vegetation communities. The following subsections describe these communities and their locations in the study area, which are also shown on Figure 4.4-1a to 4.4-1g), Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Project Area. Field surveys identified 17 stream crossings (referred to as SC-1 through SC-17) within proposed pipeline routes (Figure 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b). Developed The proposed pipeline alignments are predominantly in paved streets, which provide little habitat for wildlife. Although paved roads themselves generally lack habitat for wildlife, common wildlife could occasionally cross roads in the study area to get to nearby landscaped habitat or non-native forest (i.e., eucalyptus woodland). Thus, developed areas often have similar wildlife species as the landscaped and non-native forest communities discussed below, but with lower rates of occurrence and on a transient basis. Construction sites for the water purification facility at SC WWTP and a portion of the Headquarters-West Annex site are in developed areas, as are the Monterey Avenue, Willowbrook, and the Cabrillo College North, Cabrillo College South, and Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Barren/Ruderal Barren and ruderal areas are found within the study area at the following sites: HeadquartersWest Annex, Chanticleer, Willowbrook Recharge Well, and Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well. Ruderal plant communities include plants that grow where the native vegetation cover has been disturbed, often including non-native plant species that are the first to colonize disturbed lands. Ruderal vegetation observed at the Headquarters-West Annex site includes broadleaf filaree (Erodium botrys), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), Crane’s bill geranium (Geranium molle), wild radish (Raphanus sativa), and spring vetch (Vicia sativa). Ruderal vegetation at the Chanticleer site includes English plantain and wild radish. The Chanticleer site also includes a commercial building to the south of the site, hard-packed dirt and gravel areas used for parking, and an unoccupied building within the west end of the site. Landscaped Project elements that include landscape trees include the Headquarters-West Annex Site and the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility, both potential sites for water purification facilities, as well as residential homes and landscaping adjacent to the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well site; Willowbrook Park and facilities, adjacent to the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well site; and the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well site. While pipeline routes are within developed residential streets, nearby vegetation primarily consists of common urban landscaping species such as Monterey pine (Pinus radiata), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), strawberry tree (Arbutus marina), Italian cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) and Chinese juniper (Juniperus chinensis), among others. For the most part, the ornamental landscape trees and shrubs are relatively small in stature and provide limited food and cover for wildlife. Landscaped areas in an otherwise urban environment can provide cover, foraging, and nesting habitat for a variety of bird species as well as reptiles and small mammals, especially those that are tolerant of disturbance and human presence. Birds commonly found in such areas include non-native species such as English sparrow (Passer domesticus) and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) as well as birds native to the area, including American robin (Turdus migratorius), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma californica), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna). When present, reptiles using this type of habitat often include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and northern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata). Other wildlife present in these urban landscaped areas include striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and tree-roosting bats as well as the nonnative Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Eucalyptus Woodland This community consists of a dense to sparse cover of blue gum eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) trees. The understory is typically sparse or absent due to the large volumes of forest debris, such as bark, limbs, and branches, produced by the trees that contain chemical compounds that prevent germination of other plants. A grove of eucalyptus trees occurs alongside Wharf Road, south of Clares Street, within 50 feet of the proposed pipeline alignment. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Broadway s Ave 1 Week t California S t yS t Wa f St ger Clif n You it Trin St t en S 3 rd Tre e t St St F r o g Ln y n Mai n Fro 2nd St 1st St Beac h St Ca lif or ni a Av e Neary Lagoon Ba y St Santa Cruz WWTF _ ^ Gh ke ar Unknown Species Manzanita N St t yS ur fo Du Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 4/6/2018 by S St Hold Center St S yca more to n S t n St y St ng Washi t St st n u kbur N ear t Spruce S t Che B l ac Felix St t Walti St Laurent S zo Bl vd Ave Cedar S Laurel St Lore n field St S an Av e tl e Myr n Birch L St Bi x St rside Ri v e Maple St t B ar so n C an gS St ic Ave Pacif Rig is C l ay Ot 0 300 Feet Cowell S t SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Habitat Types Fresh Emergent Wetland Coastal Brackish Marsh Landscaped Coastal Lagoon Mixed Riparian Woodland Developed Riverine 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1a Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 1 of 7 nell Ave oA ve M ar he c P ac P ar k r ig h S ea b St St n Sum t Av Pe n n e t c k St Fre deri er S D ar w t uga S t in S an S ve te A O ce fo r C ay nc i e Av ania sylv Br a Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 Way ve lA e y Ln over H an y Ef fe n te ann Av Ave lt St r Libra i to Ga u Me H ag e m Ave e Av ve st A sey Fo re ri s Mor B en S l ue q o t ay Pine St a dw Winds or S t t an ia S O ce on led Ca Bro Vie ve wA St Windham St C l ay Glenv ie w St St N 0 300 Feet C l ay SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 St _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Habitat Types Developed 5 3 2 Riverine 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1b Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 2 of 7 Å Ä 1 So q D Co Av e da n Fo ay rci a l W ia W ay q ve Mans field S t _ ^ Pa u l So lA ue ¬ « 1 Minn ie kW ay P ar A ca c m me Ave La l ue r Bostwick Ln O n ora to Ln e da Gl e n a n L tri n a Ct Dora Av Webster St Eastcrest Ct e 15th A v sC ir O ak Am City Limits Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) l Habitat Types Barren/Ruderal Developed Ct N aP Fre y Jo s 50 ft Buffer Purified Water (Proposed) ay a 15 t h Ave r E Do r l ad Ave o rb o Ma ri a Ct n a eA ve Ha Sc ho o ne r Ct Checola Ct e Ave Rd Ka la Ct 16 t h h an 7t it o Koopm ans Ave em Av e Fr e Cap _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ Ba l i Way Harkleroad Ave ce Ln E dgra SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 nie C t Malco lm 300 Feet Ln V a le Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 ri e Fresh Emergent Wetland Mixed Riparian Woodland Riverine 0 Willa Way Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 P aul M in n l Av J ua n Pa blo L Ca r Chanticleer Site Vista P ri e t a Ct 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Ct Figure 4.4-1c Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 3 of 7 Wa y Woodrose Ave P es c Dou Sus an Ln a Dr Pl Harper St Ct A ar o n Dr Eric a Begonia ri e Ct Ave Ave r Dr me r St Edmar Ln Ln Lisa Ln Kinsl e y St Cisco e gr i ni S t e Lewis Cir P e ll n Av c o ra Co r D an i el Ct et A ve P ag r Pl Tow e Al o ha L n Eaton St Darlene Dr l Ln L iv e st a Ca C ry b le Ln Ct Oak n g ma ay 17 t h El D Co l o ny W Dr al f i B ro m Am 7t h Av e Me llo gL Rd L in n ea Ct e Wa y Lid o eL n 8th Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 Sta g Cap itola Iris Ln D i an ov Leila C Fre y rC Byer Rd Val e o Av e rbo Ln orad Ha Ave 15 t h Ave aP l Jo s Vo lz Ln Ln Willa Way Ed dy Malco lm 16 t h s O a k C ir t or E Do r l ad Ave o rb eA ve Ha N 0 300 Feet SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Habitat Types Coastal Lagoon Developed Mixed Riparian Woodland Coastal Terrace Prarie Riverine 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1d Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 4 of 7 n Do nan L H an ay et te _ ^ La f Wa lnu t Ct Porter St West Annex Site G ary Dr Robertson St rch Park Dr Cordelia Ln St Main St Kristie Ct Dr River St Walnut St R esea Rodeo Gulch Rd Daubenbiss Ave el Dr Soqu uglas 41 st ola Av e Cory St C ap i t ¬ « za Dr 1 e Auto Pla Swallow Ln Oriole Ln Rd N 0 300 AFeet lma SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 Pl u m R ose Fra ncesco Cir Clares St Pine S t P lum St S uns e t D r Preakness Ave 42nd Ave rf ve yA Derby Ave Ba Trotter St ha W 40th Ave Warbler Ln Hill St St Gross Rd Lauren c e Ave el Av d a le Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 A ve S oqu Ln Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Purified Water (Proposed) Habitat Types Purified Water (Options) Barren/Ruderal Secondary or Tertiary Effluent Developed and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Landscaped Mixed Riparian Woodland Eucalyptus Woodland Riverine 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1e Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 5 of 7 48th Ave 44th Ave ie w rv ve ve A 43rd Ave Ri Pl Rd Somm e Cir Begonia Clares Sa mu e l Grace St a rf Wh t ar rfeld S t Ct Le o Eric a St A ar o n Dr 42nd Ave Ct Pl Willa Way ri e 46th Ave Cour tyard D r Viga Ct Val e r ff D Cli 47th Ave 38th Ave Opal St Topaz St Garden St Reposa Ave Eastwind Cir Westwind Cir Darlene Dr Brommer St Thompson Ave Jewel St Av e Garnet St pec t Renwick Way Emerald St Pro s Elda Ln Crystal St Lin co Bulb Ave Julie Ln Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 41st Ave Childers Ln 49th Ave St ln A ve Capitola Rd Harper Nova Dr Po rt a ol Dr Melton St Dr O pa lC lif f N 0 Lewis Cir 300 Feet SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Habitat Types Developed Mixed Riparian Woodland Eucalyptus Woodland Riverine 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1f Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 6 of 7 Crestline Way Ca b ot C t # r Atherto Che n lD S oqu e n Dr Willowbrook Park Ja so n C W ay t Dr im bledon erw oo Ln as W ay Cabrillo College North Imper ia brook Park Ave Ln P ep p # l Twin Lakes Church Willow Orchard St Rosedale Ave Lindsay e Dr Ct Ethringt on Way e Ln Al t u r # ¬ « 1 Mcgregor D # r # Cabrillo College South Kennedy Dr Monterey St aA r Si Fr l bo Co ro Ba Av e an St t # zS rc O d hi e Av St o n lla ge SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017 ESA, 2016, 2017 M y r te Ma Co St Pl u m nt e er e Av ci s Hill St ve Columbus Dr nor Eli Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Veg_Communities1.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 Ridaken Way Lorai n W d W ay Baselin na do N St 0 300 Feet Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 Recharge Well (Options) _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ 50 ft Buffer City Limits Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Habitat Types Barren/Ruderal Developed Landscaped Mixed Riparian Woodland Oak Woodland Riverine 5 3 2 4 1 6 7 Figure 4.4-1g Habitat Types in the Vicinity of the Study Area Page 7 of 7 La Fon da AVE _ ^ Water Purification Facilities (Options) Potential Jurisdictional Waters Å Ä RC #1 1 Potential Wetland (PW) Chanticleer Site Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) N Purified Water (Proposed) d _ ^ sey Blv PW #1 Mo rris Bra e or t nc i f t an S Oce Options B ra ncif orte Ave Cr ee k Stream Crossing (SC) River ST Riparian Corridor (RC) SC #3 So quel Ave Water St SC #4 St ter Wa Å Ä L or 1 ve Ara na S an A el qu So Gu lch SC #12 e n zo River SC #14 C apitola R d ne St t Ave Walnu SC #2 SC #16 PW #2 SC #13 E Cli ff D Laurel St r C alifornia St PW #3 Ba y SC #1 2nd St Ave St St Beach Schwan Lagoon Neary Lagoon ^ SC WWTF _ 0 N 1,100 Mo nt er ey B a y E Clif fD r Corcoran Lagoon Feet SOURCE: USDA, 2014; CARI, 2016; USGS, 2016; ESRI, 2012; ESA, 2017 Service Layer Credits: t SC #15 AV E 1 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 26 th Å Ä Brom mer S Sea bright Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\FigX_StreamCrossing_PotJuris1_West.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 7th Av e t an S Oce ln St Linco 17th Pi Leona Cr ee k Broadway Figure 4.4-2a Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the Vicinity of the Pure Water Soquel Project (1 of 2) Soquel D Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well SC #9 r # Cabrillo College Nroth Recharge Well _ ^ _ ^ Soq uel A V Headquarters West Annex Site SC #8 SC #17 E Chanticleer Site SC #18 # SC #10 SC #5 # bl eG No u Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Cabrillo College South Recharge Well ve yA re e t on Rod k eo C reek Tan n er y G # ve yA Ba ree Soq uel C Ave 41st Ave Park SC #6 49th Ave _ ^ Riparian Corridor (RC) Dr Jade St liff t Water Purification Facilities (Options) Potential Jurisdictional Waters Stream Crossing (SC) C Brom mer S Capitola Rd 30th Ave Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\FigX_StreamCrossing_PotJuris1_East.mxd, wsm 5/22/2018 Kennedy Dr ulch C apito la Ave M C apitola R d # lc h SC #11 Monterey Ave Recharge Well Mo nt er ey B a y Options Purified Water (Proposed) 0 N 1,100 SC #7 Feet SOURCE: USDA, 2014; CARI, 2016; USGS, 2016; ESRI, 2012; ESA, 2017 Service Layer Credits: Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) # Recharge Well (Options) Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention . 160164 Figure 4.4-2b Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the Vicinity of the Pure Water Soquel Project (2 of 2) 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Eucalyptus groves can provide overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus). Overwintering monarch butterflies were reported at the Wharf Road grove in 2013 (CDFW, 2017), and dozens of monarchs were observed flying in this grove during a field survey on December 2,2016. Eucalyptus stands also provide nesting and roosting habitat for various common bird species, such as great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and house finches (Haemorhous mexicanus). Dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), and brown creeper (Certhia Americana) may also use these areas. Common reptiles such as gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer catenifer) and northern alligator lizard may also inhabit the understory of these stands. Oak Woodland Approximately 0.7 acres of remnant oak woodland is present within the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well site between Cabrillo College Drive and to the east, and the parking lot and spoils pile to the west. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) is the dominant species. Oak woodland provides wildlife habitat to a number of species. Bird species common to oak woodland include Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), western screech owl (Otus kennicottii) and California quail (Callipepla californica). Birds observed at the site included bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata), chestnut-backed chickadee (Poecile rufescens), and oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus). Amphibians such as California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) and arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris) are known to use coastal oak woodlands. Reptiles that use this habitat include gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), common kingsnake (Lampropeltis getulus) and northern alligator lizard. Mixed Riparian Woodland Mixed riparian woodland consists of dense to sparse cover of primarily arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica). Associated overstory species in this community include Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). The understory in this riparian community is primarily composed of poisonoak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and stinging nettle (Urtica sp.). This community type is also known as central coast riparian woodland or forest. Riparian woodlands provide habitat for a number of wildlife species due to extensive cover and presence of flowing water. Common mammals found in riparian corridors include raccoon (Procyon lotor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), grey fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), and dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes). Birds that use riparian habitats for nesting and foraging include northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), red-shouldered hawk, song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), a California species of special concern, and Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), a species on the CDFW watch list. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Mixed riparian woodland is present along: Tannery Gulch at Stream Crossing 11; Soquel Creek and tributaries (Stream Crossings 8, 9, and 10); Rodeo Creek (Stream Crossing 5, 6, and 7); an unknown tributary to Schwan Lagoon (Stream Crossings 14, 15 and 16); Arana Gulch (Stream Crossings 3 and 4); and unknown tributaries on which Stream Crossings 12, 13, 17 and 18 were confirmed (see Figures 4.4-1a through 4.4-1g, and 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b). Riverine Riverine communities are defined as intermittent or continually running waters, often referred to as rivers, streams or creeks. These streams originate at some elevated source, such as a lake or spring, and flow down slope. Streams are smaller and faster at their origin; velocity progressively decreases and water volume increases (due to contributions from tributaries) as the water moves to lower elevations. During this transition, water temperature and turbidity tend to increase, dissolved oxygen decreases, and the streambed gradually changes from rock and cobble to silt and mud. High quality riverine communities provide habitat for benthic macro-invertebrates such as mayflies, caddisflies, alderflies and stoneflies, and the larva of true flies, where the stream is fast and well-oxygenated. Pools support dragonflies, damselflies and water striders. In slower, warmer reaches of the stream, crustaceans, water boatmen, backswimmers and diving beetles thrive. Emergent vegetation grows along stream banks, and duckweed floats on the surface. Decaying matter on the muddy river bottom promotes the growth of plankton in sluggish waters. Coastal Lagoon Coastal lagoon is a type of estuary, a partially enclosed coastal body of brackish water of varying salinity with one or more rivers or streams flowing into it. Coastal lagoons are separated from ocean water exchange by a narrow strip of terrestrial substratum, such as a sandbar, gravel bar or mud berm. Breaching of the enclosure occurs infrequently, i.e., occurring annually or less often. Neary Lagoon, Schwan Lagoon and Corcoran Lagoon are coastal lagoons in the vicinity of the Project. Coastal Terrace Prairie Coastal terrace prairie is a dense, tall grassland (up to 1 meter) dominated by both sod and tussock-forming perennial grasses. Most stands are quite patchy and variable in composition, reflecting local differences in available soil moisture capacity. This plant community is found on sandy loams on marine terraces near the coast within the zone of coastal fog incursion. Characteristic plant species include Colonial bentgrass (Agrostis tenuis), sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), California sea pink (Armeria maritima ssp. californica), Pacific reedgrass (Calamagrostis nutkaensis), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), California hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis), red fescue (Festuca rubra) and common velvetgrass (Holcus lanatus). Remnant coastal terrace prairie is present north of Schwan Lagoon within about 50 feet of the pipeline alignment north of the prairie. Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia), a CRPR Rank 1B.1 plant, has historically grown here (CNDDB, 2016). The CDFW has identified coastal terrace prairie as important habitat for the Santa Cruz tarplant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Fresh Emergent Wetland Coastal and valley freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent wetland vegetation such as bulrushes and tules (Schoenoplectus spp. and Bolboschoenus spp.) and cattail (Typha latifolia). Other species include tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), sedge (Carex sp.), rush (Juncus sp.), and rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis). Within the study area, instream wetlands are present on both sides of the San Lorenzo River at SC-2, approximately within 30 or fewer feet upstream and downstream of the bridge. Instream wetlands are also present 130 feet downstream of SC-1 on the north bank of the San Lorenzo River. At SC-3 in Arana Gulch, a small patch of wetlands is present in a concrete channel 50 feet upstream of the culvert under Soquel Avenue (see Figure 4.4-2a). Marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris) was observed in the study area near SC-2 and may nest in shoreline vegetation, as may red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) and song sparrow. This habitat may also be used by amphibians including the sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), western toad (Bufo boreas), and American bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus). Freshwater marsh vegetation along streams and lakes can also provide some nesting and seasonal foraging opportunities and cover for waterbird species, several of which were observed in the study area, including mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), American coot (Fulica Americana), and snowy egret (Egretta thula). Pelagic (Open Water) Habitat Within the study area, the pelagic habitat supports planktonic organisms that float or swim in the water, as well as fish, marine birds, and marine mammals. Monterey Bay has a high level of phytoplankton primary production 2 due to annual seasonal upwelling. Phytoplankton, the primary producers in the marine pelagic food web, are consumed by many species of zooplankton. In turn, the zooplankton supports a variety of species, such as small schooling fish (e.g., sardine, herring) and baleen whales (Mysticeti). Seasonal blooms of phytoplankton regularly occur in Monterey Bay (Pennington and Chavez, 2000) when optimal conditions for each species (e.g. temperature, nutrient concentrations, salinity) develop. Some phytoplankton species, such as the dinoflagellates (Cochlodinium), produce toxins and can cause harmful algal blooms when they reproduce to very high densities (Kudela et al., 2008; Shahraki et al, 2013). Common zooplankton in Monterey Bay include small shrimp-like invertebrates (crustaceans) of the order Euphausiacea commonly known as krill. Large aggregations of euphausiids often precede the arrival of blue whales that come to feed on crustaceans at the edge of the Monterey Bay Submarine Canyon. Euphausiids feed on phytoplankton that grow after nutrient rich water has upwelled to the surface. Euphausiid species typically present in these groups are Euphausia pacifica, Thyanoessa spinifera, and Nyctiphanes simplex (Croll et al., 2005). Monterey Bay has one of the most diverse and abundant marine mammal assemblages in the world with up to six species of seals and sea lions, 20 species of whales, dolphins, and porpoises, and one species of sea otter potentially occurring within the study area (MBNMS, 2018a). 2 Phytoplankton primary production refers to the growth rate of the phytoplankton community. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources The most common seals and sea lions observed in the study area include the Pacific harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), and the northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris). Although any of these species can haul out on the sandy beaches or rocky intertidal breakwalls at Moss Landing Harbor, there are no known haul out areas for these species within the study area (MBNMS, 2018a). The most commonly observed cetaceans (whales) within the study area include the humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae), California gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus), the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), and occasionally the Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata). Other whale species that occur within Monterey Bay but are rarely or infrequently observed in the nearshore waters of the study area include the fin, sperm, North Pacific right, Sei, killer, and Baird’s beaked whales. The most commonly observed dolphins and porpoises in the study area of Monterey Bay include the common dolphin (Delphinus spp.), bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates), Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliguidens), and Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). Additionally, while harbor porpoises (Phocena phocena) are frequently observed in the nearshore waters adjacent to Sunset Beach to the north of the study area, they are infrequently observed in the study area. Other dolphin and porpoise species present in the study area do not utilize nearshore waters or occur very infrequently; these include Dall’s porpoise, Northern right whale dolphin, and striped dolphin. Southern sea otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) inhabits the nearshore waters of Monterey Bay and the study area using Elkhorn Slough in Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve as a pupping area (MBNMS, 2018a). Benthic (Sea Floor) Habitats Soft substrate and hard substrate comprise the benthic habitat or submerged lands of MBNMS; however, only soft substrate is present in the study area. The soft substrate habitat in the study area consists primarily of deltaic deposits from coastal streams, principally the Salinas River, and other unclassified soft substrate. Physical processes, such as waves and currents, sort the sediment particles roughly by grain size so that there are onshore-offshore gradients in the fineness of sediments. Offshore, soft-bottom subtidal areas are characterized by benthic (bottom dwelling) organisms typical of the open-coast soft-bottomed community off much of the California coast. Biological diversity is generally greater in the subtidal area, where wave action and currents are moderate, and temperature and salinity fluctuate less than in the intertidal area. The infaunal marine community typically consists of multiple species of polychaete and oligochaete worms, amphipods, cumaceans, isopods, ostracods, mollusks, decapods, gastropods, and ophiuroides. Common megabenthic epifauna include anemones, crabs, shrimp, gastropod snails, echinoderm sea stars, and sea pens. Many different fish species spend all or part of their life cycle in association with the sea floor. These species include flatfish, gobies, poachers, eelpouts, and sculpins, which all live in close association with the benthos during their subadult and adult life. Others, such as salmon, steelhead, smelt, sturgeon and other fish species, use the benthos for foraging. This habitat area typically extends throughout most of the Monterey Bay with associated species composition and abundance changing gradually with depth. Special-Status Terrestrial and Freshwater Species The phrase “special-status species” is term-of-art used by the scientific community to describe plant and wildlife species that are considered sufficiently rare that they require special consideration and/or protection and should be, or have been, listed as rare, threatened or Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources endangered by the federal and/or State governments. Such species are legally protected under the federal and/or State Endangered Species Acts, or other regulations, or are species that are considered sufficiently rare by the regulatory and scientific community to qualify for protection. The term special-status species includes the following: • Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) (50 Code of Federal regulations [CFR] 17.12 [listed plants], 17.11 [listed animals] and various notices in the Federal Register [FR] [proposed species]); • Species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 40, February 28, 1996); • Species listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5); • Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.); • Animal species of special concern to CDFW; • Animals fully protected under Fish and Game Code (California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511 [birds], 4700 [mammals], and 5050 [reptiles and amphibians]); • Species that meet the definitions of rare and endangered under CEQA. CEQA Section 15380 provides that a plant or animal species may be treated as “rare or endangered” even if not on one of the official lists (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15380); and • Plants considered under the CDFW and CNPS to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B, and 2) as well as select CRPR Rank 3 and 4 3 plant species. • Marine species managed and regulated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA); • Marine species protected under the Marine Mammals Protection Act (MMPA); A comprehensive list of special-status species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project site was compiled based on data in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2018), the USFWS Official List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by the Projects (USFWS, 2018a), the CNPS Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS) (CNPS, 2018); Calflora’s wild California plants database (Calflora, 2018). A list of special-status species with moderate to high potential to occur within the vicinity of the Project site, along with their general habitat requirements, is provided below in Table 4.4-1. Recorded observations of special-status species within five miles of the Project site are shown in Figures 4.4-3 and 4.4-4. The full results of the queries for special status plants and animals, including those not expected or which have low potential to occur in the study area, are presented in the Appendix C-1. Species lists for terrestrial and freshwater species are provided in Appendix C-2. 3 CRPR 3 and 4 plants may be analyzed under CEQA §15380 if sufficient information is available to assess potential impacts to such plants. Factors such as regional rarity vs. statewide rarity should be considered in determining whether cumulative impacts to a CRPR 3 or 4 plant are significant even if individual project impacts are not. CRPR 3 and 4 plants may be considered regionally significant if, for example, the occurrence is located at the periphery of the species’ range, or exhibits unusual morphology, or occurs in an unusual habitat/substrate. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-1 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH A MODERATE OR HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS/ CDFW/CRPR Potential for Species Occurrencea General Habitat Requirements FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING Plants Santa Cruz tarplant Holocarpha macradenia FT/SE/1B.1 Clay soils on grassy coastal flats, valley and foothill grassland. Documented from Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Monterey, and Santa Cruz counties, as well as one reported record in Solano County. Blooms June – October San Francisco popcorn flower Plagiobothrys diffuses --/SE/1B.1 Coastal prairie, valley, and foothill grassland; historically on grasslands with marine influence. Blooms March – June High. Numerous records, including from 2007 in fields north of Schwan Lagoon, just south of Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. Mostly limited to sides of heavily used path where competition from French Broom is least. Area is adjacent to pipe alignment in study area. Numerous additional extant records within 0.25 to 2 miles from study area. One historical, (1933), non-specific record overlaps with study area, but population has since been confirmed as extirpated. In addition, Critical habitat is present north of Schwan Lagoon, as well as in Arana Gulch (CDFW, 2018). Moderate. Suitable habitat present on coastal prairie north of Schwan Lagoon. Cluster of current (late 1990s to 2000) CNDDB records in the area of Wilder Creek and Moore Creek, approximately 2 miles west of study area. Several other occurrences 1 to 2 miles north of study area (CDFW, 2018). Invertebrates Ohlone tiger beetle Cicendela ohlone FE/--/-- Endemic to Santa Cruz County where it is known only from coastal terraces supporting patches of native grassland habitat. Trails and trampled areas in sunny, open habitat preferred. Habitat is associated with either Watsonville loam or Bonnydoon soil types. Adults active mid-January to mid-May. Moderate. Potentially suitable habitat on coastal prairie north of Schwan Lagoon, where Watsonville loam is present (UC Davis, 2018). Pipeline alignment is under dense tree canopy, which is 50-100 feet from the open, sunny grassland habitat preferred by this species; however, it is not restricted to open, sunny habitat. Several CNDDB records in grassy areas within 0.5 to 1.75 miles of study area. Nearest known current occurrence is at U.C. Santa Cruz (Arnold, 2018), 3 miles NW of the study area. FE/SSC/-- Brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego Co. to the mouth of the Smith River. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, they need fairly still but not stagnant water and high oxygen levels. High. Could be present in lower stream reaches. CNDDB record from 2004 from the west bank of the San Lorenzo River, between the Riverside Avenue Bridge and the Soquel Avenue Bridge – both bridges are in the study area. Additional records from lower reaches of Soquel Creek, Corcoran Lagoon (fed by Rodeo Creek, Stream Crossing 5, 6, and 7) and Woods Lagoon (fed by Arana Gulch, Stream Crossings 3 and 4) (CFDW, 2018). FE/SE/-- Historically distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean from central California to Alaska and probably inhabited most coastal streams in central California. Spawning habitat is small streams with stable gravel substrates. Adults forage in estuarine and marine waters of the Pacific Ocean. High. Recorded in 1995 from San Lorenzo River and tributaries, from headwaters to mouth on Pacific Ocean. Thought to be extirpated in 1978 and stream re-stocked. The San Lorenzo River non-native hatcherymaintained coho population is estimated to be 75-125 adults per year. Two pipeline alignment options cross the San Lorenzo River (CFDW, 2018). Fish tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi Coho salmon (central California coast ESU) Oncorhynchus kisutch Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-1 (CONTINUED) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH A MODERATE OR HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS/ CDFW/CRPR Potential for Species Occurrencea General Habitat Requirements FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING (cont.) Fish (cont.) Steelhead (central California coast DPS) Oncorhynchus mykiss FT/--/-- Spawns and rears in coastal streams between the Russian River in Sonoma County to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, as well as drainages tributary to San Francisco and San Pablo Bays, where gravelly substrate and shaded riparian habitat occurs. High. Presumed present in the San Lorenzo River and tributaries, from headwaters to the mouth (CDFW, 2018). In 2000, spawning and rearing were reported in Soquel Creek; also in Arana Gulch, upstream from Woods Lagoon (CFDW, 2018). Chinook salmon (California coast ESU) (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) FT/--/--- Includes all naturally spawned populations of Chinook salmon from rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River, California. Moderate. Adults may migrate and/or forage in marine habitat in Monterey Bay. Breeds in shallow, usually ephemeral, freshwater ponds for breeding and adjacent upland scrub and woodland areas during the nonbreeding season. During nonbreeding season, mostly found under wood, logs, rocks, bark and other objects, or in small mammal burrows, within 0.5-mi of breeding sites. Habitat includes dense riparian vegetation such as willows, coastal scrub, and oak woodland. Restricted to southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey Counties. Moderate. Lagoons with adjacent riparian woodland and coastal scrub are present in study area, specifically near Schwan Lake and Corcoran Lagoon, which are within 0.5-mi of pipeline crossings at potential nonbreeding habitat. Population noted at Valencia Lagoon and adjacent drainage canal on SW side of Hwy 1, Rio del Mar, 4 miles east of study area (CDFW, 2018). Partly-shaded, usually perennial, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats. Needs at least some cobble-sized substrate for egg-laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. High. Record from 2008 along a rocky stream channel with riparian habitat, including about 9 miles of Soquel Creek upstream from Soquel, about 1.25 miles of Hinckley Creek upstream from Soquel Creek confluence (CDFW, 2018). Amphibians Santa Cruz long-toed salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum FE/SE/FP/-- Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii --/SC /-- California red-legged frog Rana draytonii FT/SSC/-- Breeds in fresh emergent and seasonal wetlands, and slow-moving streams. Requires 11-20 weeks of permanent water for larval development. Aestivation habitat includes oak woodlands and grasslands. Species will travel over 1 mi from breeding habitat to access aestivation habitat. Moderate. Stream habitat within study area could provide marginal breeding habitat; however, appropriate aestivation habitat, including ground squirrel burrows, was not observed in the study area. Aestivation habitat outside study area may be accessible via stream corridor. Identified on the UC Santa Cruz campus, and from ponds and wetlands 1.5 miles from the study area (CDFW, 2018). --/SSC/-- Occurs in moist, warm, loose soil with plant cover, sparsely vegetated beach dunes, pine-oak woodland, chaparral, riparian woodland, desert scrub, sandy washes and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods or oaks. Leaf litter under trees and bushes in sunny areas and dunes stabilized with bush lupine and mock heather often indicate suitable habitat. Low. Suitable habitat not present in study area. CNDDB record from 1984 in habitat consisting of dunes mostly covered with iceplant, 3 miles east of study area (CDFW, 2018). Reptiles Black legless lizard Anniella pulchra nigra Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-1 (CONTINUED) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH A MODERATE OR HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS/ CDFW/CRPR Potential for Species Occurrencea General Habitat Requirements FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED OR PROPOSED FOR LISTING (cont.) Mammals Northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris) P/FP/-- Spend 9 months of the year in the ocean, usually underwater, diving to depths of 1,000 – 2,500 ft. Only come ashore when debilitated or at one of the established rookeries. Three rookeries are on mainland beaches in MBNMS at Pt. Piedras Blancas, Cape San Martin/Gorda, and Año Nuevo State Park. Moderate. Northern elephant seals are widely distributed in MBNMS and spend extensive time underwater, as deep as 1,000 – 2,500 feet. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) MMPA Diet includes small schooling fish such as anchovy and herring, and squid. Moderate. Observed in shallow sandy bottom areas of the Monterey Bay Shelf where they forage. California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) MMPA Coastal waters of Monterey Bay are used for foraging with haul-out sites near Fishermen’s Wharf; most abundant pinniped in MBNMS Moderate. Main haul-out sites are located south of the study area; however, foraging can be expected to occur over the entire continental shelf. STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FULLY-PROTECTED, AND STATE RARE PLANT RANK SPECIES Plants Monterey pine Pinus radiate --/--/1B.1 Closed-cone coniferous forest and cismontane woodland. High. No CNDDB records within 3 miles of study area; however, this species was observed in the study area along the road at Stream Crossing 10 on the south side of Hwy 1. Invertebrates Monarch butterfly Danaus plexippus --/--/wintering Eucalyptus groves (winter sites). habitat protected Period of identification: Winter (wintering sites) High. CNDDB record from 2013 along Soquel Creek near Wharf Rd. and Clares St. (Xerces site #2984), directly adjacent to pipeline route. Dozens of monarchs were observed flying in the Eucalyptus grove during site visit on 12/2/2016. City of Capitola General Plan identified an overwintering site between Soquel Creek and Wharf Rd. near Woolsey Circle. Amphibians Santa Cruz black salamander Aneides niger Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR --/SSC/-- Found in coastal grassland, open oak and conifer woodlands, redwood and Douglas fir forests, mixed evergreen forests, clearings near forest edges, under rocks near permanent streams, areas around springs, wet to damp rock rubble, and caves and mine shafts. Generally, found outside areas of continuous tree canopy. Reproduction is terrestrial. 4.4-22 Moderate. Suitable, but marginal, habitat present in urban streams; however, no CNDDB records within 3 miles of the study area. ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-1 (CONTINUED) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH A MODERATE OR HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS/ CDFW/CRPR General Habitat Requirements Potential for Species Occurrencea STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FULLY-PROTECTED, AND STATE RARE PLANT RANK SPECIES (cont.) Amphibians (cont.) California giant salamander Dicamptodon ensatus --/SSC/-- Inhabits moist and mesic coastal forests within and near clear, cold, rocky permanent or semi-permanent streams or seepages. Above ground, it is found under logs, bark, and rock, usually near water. Found in the South and North Coast Ranges from southern Santa Cruz County north to just beyond the Sonoma-Mendocino County border, and from north of San Francisco eastward to western Lake and Glenn Counties. Absent from the East Bay area. Moderate. Suitable, but marginal, habitat present in urban streams. CNDDB record from 1987 from along Paul Sweet Road in Arana Gulch, ~1 mile from study area. Additional CNDDB records from 2.8 to 3.7 miles from study area. --/SSC/-- Ponds, marshes, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches with aquatic vegetation. Requires basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg-laying. Nest sites most often characterized as having gentle slopes (<15%) with little vegetation or sandy banks. Primarily in foothills and lowlands. High. CNDDB record from 1996 from Soquel Creek, upstream from the confluence with West Branch Soquel Creek. Pipeline route intersects with section of Creek where observations are identified. --/WL/-- Nests in riparian areas, oak woodlands, and suburban street trees. Hunts songbirds at woodland edges and residential backyard bird feeders. High. No CNDDB records within 3 miles of study area; however, this riparian and residential nesting habitat is present throughout the study area. Colonial nester in tall trees near wetland foraging areas. Moderate. Eucalyptus groves or other groves of tall trees adjacent to study area could provide suitable habitat. CNDDB record from 1996 of colony 0.25 mi south of study area in a eucalyptus-dominated drainage bordered by residential development to the edge of drainage on both banks (CDFW, 2016). Nests in open on tall structures including trees, snags, platforms, electrical towers, and cranes within 5 to 15 miles of fish foraging habitat. Moderate. No CNDDB records within 3 miles of study area; however, suitable habitat is present. A wide variety of habitats is occupied, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. The species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Roosts in buildings, caves, tree hollows, crevices, mines, and bridges. Moderate. Could be present in unoccupied building at Chanticleer site or in riparian woodlands. Historical CNDDB occurrence (1928) with nonspecific location in Soquel (CDFW, 2018). Reptiles Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata Birds Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii Great blue heron Ardea Herodias Osprey Pandion haliaetus --/* (nesting colonies)/-- --/WL/-- Mammals Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR --/SSC/WBWG High 4.4-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-1 (CONTINUED) SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH A MODERATE OR HIGH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE STUDY AREA Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status USFWS/ CDFW/CRPR Potential for Species Occurrencea General Habitat Requirements STATE SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN, FULLY-PROTECTED, AND STATE RARE PLANT RANK SPECIES (cont.) Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii --/SSC/WBWG High Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus --// WBWG Medium Roost in caves, mines, tunnels with minimal disturbance but can also be found in abandoned open buildings or other human made structures. Recently detected in hollowed trees. Found in all habitats except subalpine and alpine habitats, and may be found at any season throughout its range. Very sensitive to human disturbance. Moderate. Could be present in the empty building at Chanticleer site. Historical occurrence (1945) with non-specific location in Santa Cruz (CDFW, 2018). Solitary rooster in tree foliage. Habitats include High. Suitable habitat present at many stream crossings within the study woodlands, forests, and riparian habitats with dense area. Historical occurrence (1940) with non-specific location in Santa Cruz foliage. Winters along the coast and in southern California, (CDFW, 2018). breeding inland and north of the winter range. During migration can be found throughout California. Sensitive Communities North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River High. Occurs in San Lorenzo River and tributaries north of the town of Santa Cruz. STATUS CODES: FESA = Federal Endangered Species Act CESA = California Endangered Species Act MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act FEDERAL: (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) FDL = Delisted FE = Listed as Endangered (in danger of extinction) by the Federal Government. FT = Listed as Threatened (likely to become Endangered within the foreseeable future) by the Federal Government. FC = Federal candidate for listing FD = Federal delisted BCC = Bird of Conservation Concern FEDERAL: (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); MMPA FD = Depleted population P = Federally Protected STATE: (California Department of Fish and Wildlife) SD = State delisted SE = Listed as Endangered by the State of California ST = Listed as Threatened by the State of California SR = Listed as Rare by the State of California SC = State candidate for listing California Rare Plant Ranks List 1A=Plants presumed extinct in California List 1B=Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2A= Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere List 2B= Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere An extension reflecting the level of threat to each species is appended to each rarity category as follows: .1 – Seriously threatened in California .2 – Fairly threatened in California .3 – Not very threatened in California WBWG = Western Bat Working Group: Low = Stable population Medium = Need more information about the species, possible threats, and protective actions to implement High = Imperiled or at high risk of imperilment FP = Fully Protected SSC = California Species of Special Concern WL = Watch List §3503.5 = Protection for nesting species of Falconiformes (hawks) and Strigiformes (owls) *Special animal-listed on CDFW’s Special Animal List a Determinations regarding potential for species occurrence within the service area boundary are based on a review of the CNDDB; CNPS’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants; Calflora’s online database of California plants; and an iPAC species list from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Consideration was given to the observation date (historical or recent), current land conditions (e.g., developed, protected), distance from the service area boundary to documented species occurrences, habitat connectivity, the presence or lack of suitable habitat within the service area boundary, and the number of documented occurrences within the service area boundary or surrounding quadrangles. SOURCES: CDFW, 2018; CNPS, 2018; Calflora, 2018; USFWS, 2018; NOAA, 2018; Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018a. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 _ Wate rTre atm e ntFacility (Options) ^ Re charge We l l( Options) Purifie d Wate r ( Propose d ) Purifie d Wate r ( Options) S e cond ary or Te rtiary Effl ue ntand Brine Conc e ntrate Line ( Options) 2Mil e Proje ctBuffe r CNDDB Animal Occurrence (Accuracy) # Anim al( 80m ) Anim al( spe cific) Anim al( nonspe cific ) Anim al( c irc ul ar,rad ius of 150–8000m ) Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Soquel Å Ä 1 Headquarters-West Annex Site Chanticleer Site # _ ^ _ ^ Monterey Ave ### # Santa Cruz 1 _ ^ College North Cabrillo College South Twin Lakes Church Å Ä Santa Cruz WWTF Willowbrook Lane Cabrillo Capitola Aptos Å Ä 1 Live Oak CNDDB Animal Occurrences Within 2 Miles of the Project 0 1 Mil es S OURCE:S qCWD,2017;CDFW,2017 Am e rican bad ge r banksw al l ow bl acksw ift burrow ingow l Cal iforniabl ackrail Cal iforniagiantsal am and e r Cal iforniare d l e gge d frog c oho sal m on -c e ntralCal iforniac oast e ul achon foothil ly e l l ow l e gge d frog gl obose d une be e tl e gre atbl ue he ron hoary bat m im ictry onia m oe stan bl iste r be e tl e m onarc h obscure bum bl e be e Ohl one tige r be e tl e pal l id bat sand y be achtige r be e tl e S antaCruzbl ac ksal am and e r ste e l he ad -ce ntralCal iforniacoastDPS tid e w ate r goby T ow nse nd ' s bige are d bat tricol ore d bl ack bird w e ste rn bum bl e be e w e ste rn pond turtl e w e ste rn snow y pl ove r Pure Wate r S oque l :Ground w ate r Re pl e nishm e ntand S e aw ate r I ntrusion Pre ve ntion. 160164 Figure 4.4-3 CNDDBAnim alOc curre nce s w ithin 2Mil e s of the Proje c t _ ^ Wate rTre atm e ntFacility (Options) # Re charge We l l( Options) Purifie d Wate r ( Propose d ) Purifie d Wate r ( Options) S e cond ary or Te rtiary Effl ue ntand Brine Conc e ntrate Line ( Options) 2Mil e Proje ctBuffe r CNDDB Plant Occurrence (Accuracy) Pl ant( 80m ) Pl ant( spe cific) Pl ant( nonspe cific ) Pl ant( c ircul ar,rad ius of 150–8000m ) Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Soquel Å Ä 1 Headquarters-West Annex Site Chanticleer Site _ ^ Monterey Ave Santa Cruz 1 _ ^ # ### College North Cabrillo College South Twin Lakes A p t o s Church Å Ä Santa Cruz WWTF # _ ^ Willowbrook Lane Cabrillo Capitola Å Ä 1 Live Oak 0 1 Mil es S OURCE:S qCWD,2017;CDFW,2017 CNDDB Plant Occurrences Within 2 Miles of the Project And e rson' s m anzanita Dud l ey' sl ouse w ort m apl el e ave d c he cke rbl oom m arshm icrose ris pe re nnialgol d fie l ds PointRe y e s horke l ia robustspine fl ow e r S an Francisco popcornfl ow e r S antaCruzcl ove r S antaCruztarpl ant w hite ray e d pe ntachae ta w ood l and w ool l y thre ad s Pure Wate r S oque l :Ground w ate r Re pl e nishm e ntand S e aw ate r I ntrusion Pre ve ntion. 160164 Figure 4.4-4 CNDDBPl antOccurre nce s w ithin 2Mil e s of the Proje ct 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Special-status Plants The name, status, habitat, and potential to occur of special-status plant species known to occur in the Project vicinity (i.e., the Davenport, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, Watsonville West, and Moss Landing USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles) is presented in Table 4.4-1. Most of the special-status plant species listed in Table 4.4-1 are considered to have a low potential to occur in the study area, and no special-status plant species were observed during the biological reconnaissance surveys conducted in 2016 and 2017. Although these reconnaissance surveys do not constitute a detailed botanical inventory of the Project site, the overall potential of the study area to support special-status plant species is considered low based on the lack of native plants and native plant habitats, and on the disturbed and heavily managed condition of the area. However, the coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon provides suitable habitat for two listed plant species: Santa Cruz tarplant, a federally threatened, state endangered, and CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 species, and San Francisco popcorn flower, a state endangered and CNPS Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 species. Special-status Wildlife Special-status wildlife species that are known or expected to occur in the general Project vicinity and in the study area around the SC WWTF outfall in MBNMS are presented in Table 4.4-1. Of these, only those considered to have a moderate or high potential for occurrence in the study area were carried forward to the impact analysis. Species that are described below in detail include the following: • Ohlone tiger beetle • Special-status bats • Monarch butterfly (overwintering) • Coho salmon (central coast ESU) • California red-legged frog • Steelhead (central coast DPS) • Foothill yellow-legged frog • Chinook salmon (California coast ESU) • Santa Cruz long-toed salamander • Tidewater goby • California black salamander • Northern elephant seal • California giant salamander • Harbor porpoise • Western pond turtle • California sea lion • Special-status birds Special-status wildlife species are not likely to occur within the water purification and recharge well sites, because most of these areas are highly fragmented and paved or dominated by nonnative ornamental or ruderal species, which have poor habitat attributes for wildlife; however, these areas may support protected nesting birds. Pipeline stream crossings and associated riparian habitat and wetlands, as well as coastal terrace prairie and Eucalyptus groves, could support habitat for some of the special-status species listed above. These species are described in further detail below. Ohlone tiger beetle. This species is a federal listed endangered species endemic to Santa Cruz County where it is known only from coastal terraces supporting patches of native grassland Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources habitat. The current distribution appears to be coastal terrace prairie, at elevations less than 1,200 feet, located between the crest of the Santa Cruz Mountains and the Pacific Ocean (Arnold, 2008). This species is associated with sunny areas of bare or sparsely vegetated ground, as well Monterey loam and Bonny Doon soil types (the latter of which often includes incursions of Monterey loam). Most adults appear to be active between late January and early May. This species has a moderate potential to occur in the study area. Potentially suitable habitat is present on the coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon, where Watsonville loam is present (U.C. Davis, 2018). The pipeline alignment is under dense tree canopy, which is 50 to 100 feet from the open, sunny grassland habitat preferred by this species; however, the species is not restricted to open, sunny habitat. Several CNDDB records in grassy areas within 0.5 to 1.75 miles of study area. Nearest known current occurrence is at U.C. Santa Cruz, 3 miles northwest of the study area (Arnold, 2018). Monarch butterfly. The CDFW protects monarch butterfly overwintering sites because they are considered vulnerable due to their sparse and restricted distribution in California (overwintering sites are primarily found only near the coast). This species migrates along the Pacific Coast, and often overwinters in wind-protected groves of trees, such as eucalyptus and Monterey cypress, between October and March. This species has a high potential to occur in the study area, and historic overwintering sites are known at Soquel Creek near Wharf Rd. and Clares St., adjacent to the pipeline route. Dozens of monarchs were observed at this site during the field survey in December 2016. The City of Capitola General Plan identifies an overwintering site between Soquel Creek and Wharf Rd. near Woolsey Circle. The pipeline alignment runs along Wharf Road at Woolsey Circle. Coho salmon (central California coast ESU). The federally and state endangered Coho salmon central California coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) was historically distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean from central California to Alaska and may have inhabited most coastal streams in central California. Coho salmon spawning habitat includes small streams with stable gravel substrates. Adults forage in estuarine and marine waters of the Pacific Ocean. Coho salmon have a high potential to occur within the study area. This species was historically known from the San Lorenzo River and its tributaries, from headwaters to the mouth on the Pacific Ocean. Though the native stock was thought to have been extirpated in 1978, the stream was subsequently re-stocked. The San Lorenzo River hatchery-maintained coho population produces about 75 to125 returning adults per year. Two pipeline alignment options cross the San Lorenzo River (SC-1 and SC-2; Figure 4.4-2a). Steelhead (central California coast DPS). The federal threatened steelhead central California coast Distinct Population Segment includes coastal streams from the Russian River in Sonoma County to Aptos Creek in Santa Cruz County, as well as drainages tributary to San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. Steelhead streams generally provide gravelly substrate for spawning and shaded riparian habitat for juvenile rearing. Steelhead have a high potential to occur in the study area. They are reported from the San Lorenzo River and tributaries, from its headwaters to its mouth. Two pipeline alignment options cross this area. They are also known from Soquel Creek and its tributaries, from the creek’s headwaters to its mouth, and from Arana Gulch upstream from Woods Lagoon. Proposed pipeline alignments cross Soquel Creek (SC-8 and SC-9) and Arana Gulch (SC-3, SC-4 and SC-12). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Chinook salmon. Chinook salmon historically ranged from the Ventura River in California to Point Hope, Alaska, on the eastern edge of the Pacific; and in the western portion of the Pacific Ocean from Hokkaido, Japan, to the Anadyr River in Russia (Healey, 1991). Chinook salmon have been categorized into 17 ESUs. Each ESU is considered a distinct race, and has been given its own management status. Factors used in determining ESUs include spatial, temporal, and genetic isolation, maturation rates, and other life history traits. Four Chinook salmon ESUs have potential to migrate through and forage in Monterey Bay: California Coastal, Sacramento River Winter-Run, Central Valley Spring-Run, and Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run. The California Coastal ESU, a federally listed threatened species, spawns in rivers and streams south of the Klamath River to the Russian River. The Sacramento River Winter-Run ESU, a federally and state-listed endangered species, spawns in the upper Sacramento River below Keswick Dam. The Central Valley Fall/Late Fall-Run ESU, a federally and state-listed species of special concern, spawns in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins (Myers et al., 1998). The Central Valley Spring-Run ESU, a federally and state—listed threatened species, spawn in the Sacramento River Basin. Chinook salmon have a moderate potential to occur in the Pacific Ocean study area, but not in study area streams or drainages. Tidewater goby. This species is federally listed as endangered and is a state species of special concern. Tidewater gobies inhabit brackish water habitats along the California coast from Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego County to the mouth of the Smith River, Del Norte County. Found in shallow lagoons and lower stream reaches, they need fairly still, but not stagnant, water and high oxygen levels. Tidewater goby has a high potential to occur in the study area, especially in lower stream reaches. A 2004 CNDDB record exists of an observation of tidewater goby from the west bank of the San Lorenzo River, between the Riverside Avenue Bridge and the Soquel Avenue Bridge – both bridges are potential pipeline crossings (SC-1 and SC-2) within in the study area. Additional records are reported from the lower reaches of Soquel Creek, Corcoran Lagoon (fed by Rodeo Creek, SC-5, SC-6 and SC-7) and Woods Lagoon (fed by Arana Gulch, SC-3 and SC-4) (see Figures 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b) (CFDW, 2018). California red-legged frog. The California red-legged frog is a federal listed threatened species and California species of special concern. Preferred breeding habitat for this species is permanent water (ponded or slow-moving streams) with densely vegetated shorelines. During the nonbreeding season, dispersal habitat includes nearly any area within 2 miles of a breeding site that stays moist and cool through the summer. Aestivation habitat includes oak woodlands and grasslands. This species is considered to have a low to moderate potential to occur in the study area. Stream habitat within study area could provide marginal breeding habitat; however, appropriate associated upland habitat elements were not observed in the study area. CNDDB records exist for this species in a creek on the U.C. Santa Cruz campus, and from ponds and wetlands located approximately 1.5 miles west of the study area (CDFW, 2018). Foothill yellow-legged frog. Foothill yellow-legged frog s is a candidate for state listing as a threatened species and a state species of special concern. It inhabits partly-shaded, usually perennial, shallow streams and riffles with a rocky substrate in a variety of habitats, and feeds on both aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates. Tadpoles are thought to graze on algae and diatoms along rocky streambeds (Morey, 2000a). Foothill yellow-legged frog requires at least some cobble-sized Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources substrate, to which they attach their eggs, which require at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. This species has a high potential to occur in the study area; albeit, outside of the Project site. A 2008 observation is reported along a rocky stream channel with riparian habitat, including about 9 miles of Soquel Creek upstream from Soquel, and about 1.25 miles of Hinckley Creek upstream from its Soquel Creek confluence. The proposed pipeline route intersects with the section of Soquel Creek where observations are reported (CDFW, 2018). Santa Cruz long-toed salamander. This species is a federal and state listed endangered, and state fully protected, species. It breeds in shallow, usually ephemeral, freshwater ponds and uses adjacent upland scrub and woodland areas during the nonbreeding season, where it is mostly found under wood, logs, rocks, bark and other objects, or in small mammal burrows, within 0.5 mi of breeding sites. Habitat includes dense riparian vegetation such as willows, coastal scrub, and oak woodland. Santa Cruz long-toed salamander is restricted to southern Santa Cruz and northern Monterey Counties. This species is not expected to occur in the study area. A 1997 observation is reported at Valencia Lagoon and an adjacent drainage canal on the SW side of Hwy 1, in Rio del Mar, 4 miles east of study area, which is considered the nearest available breeding habitat to the study area (CDFW, 2018). Santa Cruz black salamander. This California species of special concern. This species is found in coastal grassland, open oak and conifer woodlands, redwood and Douglas fir forests, mixed evergreen forests, clearings near forest edges, under rocks near permanent streams, areas around springs, wet to damp rock rubble, and caves and mine shafts. Generally, found outside areas of continuous tree canopy. The population in the vicinity of Santa Cruz appears to favor proximity to water and commonly occur under rocks at edges of streams and near springs and seepages. Santa Cruz black salamander remains active in summer in streamside and spring habitats where there is permanent water. Reproduction is terrestrial. This species has a moderate potential to occur in the study area. Suitable, but marginal, habitat is present in urban streams; however, no CNDDB records exist within 3 miles of the study area (CDFW, 2018). California giant salamander. A California species of special concern, the California giant salamander inhabits moist and mesic coastal forests within and near clear, cold, rocky permanent or semi-permanent streams or seepages. Above ground, it is found under logs, bark, and rock, usually near water. California giant salamander is found in the South and North Coast Ranges from southern Santa Cruz County north to just beyond the Sonoma-Mendocino County border, and from north of San Francisco eastward to western Lake and Glenn Counties. There is a moderate potential for this species to occur in the study area. Suitable, but marginal, habitat is present in urban streams near pipeline stream crossings. A 1987 observation is recorded from along Paul Sweet Road in Arana Gulch, approximately 1 mile from the study area; with additional sightings 2.8 to 3.7 miles from study area (CDFW, 2018). Western pond turtle. A California species of special concern, the western pond turtle inhabits rivers, streams, natural and artificial ponds, and lakes with basking sites such as logs and mud banks. Adjacent terrestrial habitat is also critical for oviposition, 4 winter refuge, and dispersal. 4 The process of laying eggs by certain animals. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources This species has a high potential to occur in study area drainages and associated nearby upland habitats. Stream banks provide potential habitat. A 1996 observation is reported from Soquel Creek, upstream of the confluence with West Branch Soquel Creek (CDFW, 2018). The pipeline route intersects with the section of Soquel Creek (SC-9) where observations are identified (see Figure 4.4-2b. Migratory and special-status birds. Although no state or federal listed bird species have a moderate or high potential to occur in the study area, the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code protect raptors and most native migratory birds and breeding birds (see Section 4.4.3, Regulatory Framework, below). In addition, the CNDDB tracks special-status birds (e.g., state species of special concern and species on the CDFW watch list). A number of migratory and special-status birds have been documented, or have moderate to high potential to nest within the study area in trees, shrubs, buildings and barren lots. Cooper’s hawk nests in riparian woodland and residential street trees. Other species that commonly nest in riparian woodland include black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), warbling vireo (Vireo gilvus), Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes bewickii), pacific-slope flycatcher (Empidonax difficilis), orange-crowned warbler (Oreothlypis celata), western screech owl, northern saw-whet owl (Aegolius acadicus), and redshouldered hawk, the latter of which was observed in the study area. Eucalyptus woodland can provide nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk and red-shouldered hawk. The CNDDB reports a 1996 great blue heron (Ardea herodias) nesting colony in a eucalyptus-dominated drainage located about 0.25-mile south of the study area. Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) could also nest in tall trees in riparian woodlands, providing access to fish foraging habitat in the nearby lagoons. Special-status bats. Several rare bat species have the potential to occur in the study area, including pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus). Suitable roosting habitat for these bats includes the unoccupied building at the Chanticleer site and riparian woodlands, however, no observations of these species are reported from the study area since 1945. Pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat have a moderate potential to occur in the study area, and hoary bat has a high potential. Northern elephant seal. Elephant seals spend 9 months of the year in the ocean, usually underwater, diving to depths of 1,000 to 2,500 feet and only come ashore when debilitated or at one of the established rookeries. Three rookeries are on mainland beaches in MBNMS at Pt. Piedras Blancas, Cape San Martin/Gorda, and Año Nuevo State Park. Northern elephant seals are widely distributed in MBNMS and spend extensive time underwater feeding on squid, octopus, sharks, rays, and large fish. Populations of northern elephant seal have recovered significantly since being nearly hunted to extinction, current NOAA estimates for the population size approximated 179,000 elephant seals in 2014 (NOAA, 2015). Northern elephant seal has a moderate potential to occur in the Pacific Ocean study area. Harbor porpoise. In the North Pacific, harbor porpoises are found from Japan north to the Chukchi Sea and from Monterey Bay, CA to the Beaufort Sea. They are most often observed in bays, estuaries, harbors, and fjords less than 650 feet (200 m) deep. Harbor porpoise is a nearshore species that inhabits northern temperate and subarctic coastal and offshore waters. The San Francisco-Russian River Stock, identified as a unique genetic group, ranges from Point Arena to Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Monterey Bay. NOAA’s most current stock assessment for the San Francisco-Russian River estimates the population at approximately 9,886 individuals (NOAA, 2014). Diet includes small schooling fish such as anchovy and herring, and squid. Observed in shallow sandy bottom areas of the Monterey Bay Shelf where they forage. Harbor porpoise has a moderate potential to occur in the Pacific Ocean study area. California sea lion. The California sea lion is protected under the MMPA. California sea lions breed in Southern California and along the Channel Islands. On occasion, sea lions will pup on Año Nuevo Island (MBNMS, 2018a). After the breeding season, males migrate up the Pacific Coast and into Monterey Bay. The largest populations of sea lions are on Año Nuevo. In Santa Cruz, sea lions often haul out (come ashore to rest) at the Santa Cruz Municipal Wharf and on Seal Rock, which is directly across from the Mark Abbot Memorial Lighthouse, in the marine study area. Sensitive Natural Communities A sensitive natural community is a natural community that receives regulatory recognition from municipal, county, state, and/or federal entities, such as the CDFW in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), because the community is unique in its constituents, restricted in distribution, supported by distinctive soil conditions, and/or considered locally rare. Three sensitive natural communities were identified in the study area: coastal terrace prairie, mixed riparian woodland, and North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River. Coastal terrace prairie and mixed riparian woodland are described above, and the later community is described below. North Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/ Roach River The north Central Coast drainage Sacramento sucker/ roach river natural community is present in the San Lorenzo River and tributaries, north of the City of Santa Cruz, and includes the river’s headwaters to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean. This natural community is also present on Kings, Boulder, Bear, Fall, Zayante and Bean creeks. Native fishes include steelhead, coho salmon (hatchery stock), Pacific lamprey, Sacramento sucker, California roach, speckled dace, threespine stickleback and sculpin species. This natural community is characterized by native lowerto-middle stream reaches, with typical flows of 102 cubic feet per second (CFS) in upper drainages and 15 CFS below granitic gorges in middle reaches. Critical Habitat Designated critical habitat for Santa Cruz tarplant and Central California Coast steelhead occur in or near several conveyance pipeline alignments, as shown in Figure 4.4-5. Critical habitat for steelhead occurs in the San Lorenzo River, tributaries to Arana Gulch, and Soquel Creek. Within 2 miles of the study area, critical habitat was also identified for California red-legged frog, robust spineflower, and tidewater goby (USFWS, 2018b). Table 4.4-2 describes the location of critical habitat in relation to the study area, including marine habitats in the Pacific Ocean that are relevant to discussion of the SC WWTF outfall. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Å Ä Soquel Å Ä 9 Headquarters-West Annex Site Chanticleer Site 1 # _ ^ _ ^ Monterey Ave Santa Cruz Å Ä # Twin Lakes Church Willowbrook Lane Cabrillo College North ### Cabrillo College South Aptos Å Ä 1 1 Santa Cruz WWTF _ ^ Capitola Live Oak _ Water Treatment Facility (Options) ^ # Recharge Well (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) 2-Mile Project Buffer Critical Habitat Central California Coast Steelhead California red-legged frog Marbled murrelet 0 1 Miles SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; USFWS, 2017 Robust spineflower Santa Cruz tarplant Tidewater goby Zayante band-winged grasshopper Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.4-5 Critical Habitat within 2 Miles of the Project 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-2 CRITICAL HABITAT IN THE VICINITY OF THE PROJECT SITE Critical Habitat Critical Habitat Location Relative to Project Site Habitat Description Green sturgeon Present: The designated critical habitat areas include Monterey Bay waters to a maximum depth of 110 feet (Federal Register, 2009). Coastal waters adjacent to shoreline. Leatherback turtle Present: The designated critical habitat areas comprise approximately 41,914 square miles of marine habitat and include waters from the ocean surface down to a maximum depth of 262 feet (Federal Register, 2012). Open ocean Black abalone Absent: This designation includes rocky intertidal and subtidal habitats from the mean higher high water (MHHW) line to a depth of 6 meters (m) (relative to the mean lower low water (MLLW) line), as well as the coastal marine waters encompassed by these areas (Federal Register, 2011). Rocky intertidal zone Central California Coast steelhead Present: Pipeline crossings across San Lorenzo River (SC-1, SC-2), Soquel Creek (SC-8, SC-9), and tributaries to Arana Gulch (SC-3, SC-4, and SC-12) (see Figures 4.4-2a and 4.4-2b) Coastal streams with gravelly substrate California red-legged frog Absent: 2 miles west of study area. Hilly annual grassland with chaparral and oak-woodland drainages, including Moore Creek Preserve Marbled murrelet Absent: 3 miles west of study area. Old growth forest Robust spineflower Absent: 1.5 miles north; 2 miles northwest of study area. Big Basin Redwoods State Park cis-montane woodland Santa Cruz tarplant Absent: Near, but not within the pipeline alignment north of Schwan Lagoon; 0.15 miles south of SC-4 at Arana Gulch (Figure 4.4-2a) Coastal terrace prairie Tidewater goby Absent: 0.5 mile south of SC-7, a pipeline crossing on Rodeo Creek (Figure 4.4-2b) Corcoran Lagoon, to which Rodeo Creek drains Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas The Coastal Act defines Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments” (Pub. Res. Code §30107.5). ESHA is designated within the Coastal Zone by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) or in an applicable local coastal program (LCP). The Coastal Zone as it relates to the Project is shown in Figure 4.12-1. In areas where a local coastal program has been developed and approved, the local coastal program may include a separate definition of ESHA. The Project is within the jurisdiction of three local coastal programs: County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola. Based on the CCC and applicable LCP definitions, ESHAs within the study area include the following habitats: fresh emergent wetland, riverine, mixed riparian woodland, coastal lagoon, coastal terrace prairie, native stands of Monterey pine, eucalyptus groves, and any habitat supporting threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.3 Regulatory Framework This subsection briefly describes federal, state, and local regulations, permits, and policies pertaining to biological resources and wetlands as they apply to the Project. Federal Regulations The Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act are the primary federal planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area. Each is summarized below. Endangered Species Act The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) are the designated federal agencies responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The ESA defines species as “endangered” and “threatened” and provides regulatory protection for any species thus designated. Section 9 of the Federal ESA prohibits the “take” of species listed by the USFWS as threatened or endangered. As defined in the Federal ESA, taking means “...to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct.” Recognizing that take cannot always be avoided, Section 10(a) of the Federal ESA includes provisions for takings that are incidental to, but not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activities. Specifically, under Section 10(a)(1)(A) authorized take permits may be issued for scientific purposes (e.g., universities). Under Section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits may be issued if taking is incidental and does not lead to jeopardy of the species. Section 7(a)(2) of the Federal ESA requires all federal agencies, including the USFWS, to evaluate the Project with respect to any species proposed for listing or already listed as endangered or threatened and their critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Federal agencies must undertake programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and are prohibited from authorizing, funding, or carrying out any action that would jeopardize a listed species or destroy or modify its “critical habitat.” As defined in the Federal ESA, “individuals, organizations, states, local governments, and other non-federal entities are affected by the designation of critical habitat only if their actions occur on federal lands, require a federal permit, license, or other authorization, or involve federal funding.” Migratory Bird Treaty Act The MBTA is the domestic law that affirms and implements a commitment by the U.S. to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means, or in any manner to intentionally pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to the intentional disturbance and removal of nests occupied by migratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season. On December 22, 2017, the U.S. Department of the Interior redefined “incidental take” under the MBTA such that, “the MBTA's prohibition on pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, or attempting to do the same applies only to direct and affirmative purposeful actions that reduce migratory birds, their eggs, or their nests, by killing or capturing, to human control.” Thus, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources the federal MBTA definition of “take” does not prohibit or penalize the incidental take of migratory birds that results from actions that are performed without motivation to harm birds. This interpretation differs from the prior federal interpretation of “take”, which prohibited all incidental take of migratory birds, whether intentional or incidental. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which is administered by the USACE), regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into “waters of the United States.” The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits that authorize certain activities in “waters of the United States,” provided that the proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Normally, the USACE requires an individual permit for an activity that would affect an area in excess of 0.3 acre of “waters of the United States.” Projects that result in impacts to less than 0.3 acre of “waters of the United States” can normally be conducted pursuant to one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on compliance with the Section 7 of the federal ESA. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act or MSA) (16 U.S.C. Sections 1801−1884) of 1976, as amended in 1996 and reauthorized in 2007, is intended to protect fisheries resources and fishing activities within 200 miles of shore. Conservation and management of U.S. fisheries, development of domestic fisheries, and phasing out of foreign fishing activities are the main objectives of the MSA. The MSA provided NOAA Fisheries with legislative authority to regulate U.S. fisheries in the area between 3 miles and 200 miles offshore and established eight regional fishery management councils that manage the harvest of the fish and shellfish resources in these waters. The MSA defines “essential fish habitat” as those waters and substrate that support fish spawning, breeding, feeding, or maturation. The MSA requires that NOAA Fisheries, the regional fishery management councils, and federal agencies that take an action that may have an effect on managed fish species under MSA, identify essential fish habitat and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. The regional fishery management councils, with assistance from NOAA Fisheries, are required to develop and implement Fishery Management Plans. Fishery Management Plans delineate essential fish habitat and management goals for all managed fish species, including some fish species that are not protected under the MSA. Federal agency actions that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely affect essential fish habitat are required under Section 305(b) of the MSA, in conjunction with required Section 7 consultation under FESA, to consult with NOAA Fisheries regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on essential fish habitat and to respond in writing to NOAA Fisheries’ recommendations. Monterey Bay is designated as essential fish habitat under four Fishery Management Plans. These plans provide protection for Pacific groundfish, coastal pelagic species, highly migratory species, and Pacific coast salmon (i.e. Chinook salmon and Coho salmon). A total of 37 commercially important fish and shark species are managed through these four Fishery Management Plans. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-37 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Marine Mammal Protection Act The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA), as amended in 1981, 1982, 1984, and 1995, establishes a federal responsibility for the protection and conservation of marine mammal species by prohibiting the “take” of any marine mammal. The MMPA defines “take” as the act of hunting, killing, capture, and/or harassment of any marine mammal, or the attempt at such. The Act also imposes a moratorium on the import, export, or sale of any marine mammals, parts, or products within the U.S. These prohibitions apply to any person in U.S. waters and to any U.S. citizen in international waters. Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), enacted by Congress in 1972, is administered by NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management. The CZMA provides for management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances economic development with environmental conservation. The CZMA outlines two national programs: the National Coastal Zone Management Program and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Under Section 307 of the CZMA (16 USC 1456), activities that may affect coastal uses or resources that are undertaken by federal agencies, require a federal license or permit, or receive federal funding must be consistent with a State’s federally approved coastal management program. The CCC implements the California Coastal Act and the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA for activities affecting California coastal uses and resources outside of San Francisco Bay. State Regulations In addition to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), the California Coastal Act, the Native Plant Protection Act, and Sections 1600-1603; and 3503, 3503.5, and 3511 of the State Fish and Wildlife Code are the primary State planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area. Each is summarized below. California Endangered Species Act (CESA) The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) closely parallels the conditions of the federal ESA; however, it is administered by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CDFW is authorized to enter into a memoranda of understanding with individuals, public agencies, universities, zoological gardens, and scientific or educational institutions to import, export, take, or possess listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. CESA establishes a petitioning process for the listing of threatened or endangered species. The California Fish and Wildlife Commission is required to adopt regulations for this process and establish criteria for determining whether a species is endangered or threatened. CESA prohibits the “taking” of listed species except as otherwise provided in state law. Unlike the federal ESA, CESA applies the take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (state candidates). State-lead agencies are required to consult with CDFW to ensure that any actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any state-listed species or result in destruction or degradation of required habitat. The CDFW is required to coordinate with the USFWS for actions that involve both federally- and state-listed species. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-38 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Under Section 2081 of the Code, the CDFW may authorize individuals or public agencies to import, export, take, or possess, any endangered, threatened, or candidate species in the State of California. These acts that are otherwise prohibited may be authorized through permits or memoranda of understanding if: (1) the take is incidental to an otherwise lawful activity; (2) impacts of the authorized take are minimized and fully mitigated; (3) the permit is consistent with any regulations adopted pursuant to any recovery plan for the species; and (4) the applicant ensures adequate funding to implement the measures required by CDFW. The Department makes this determination based on the best scientific and other information that is reasonably available and includes consideration of the species' capability to survive and reproduce. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.) provides for the longterm management of lands within California’s coastal zone boundary, as established by the Legislature and defined in the Coastal Act. Of primary relevance to terrestrial biological resources are Coastal Act policies concerning ESHA and adjacent developments, and diking, filling, or dredging and continued movement of sediment and nutrients. The CCC, in partnership with coastal cities and counties, plans and regulates the use of land and water in the coastal zone under the Coastal Act. A development activity within the coastal zone generally requires a coastal development permit from either the CCC, or from a local government with a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), to ensure that the activity complies with the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act includes goals and policies that constitute the statutory standards that are applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the CCC and by local governments. The Native Plant Protection Act The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted in 1977 includes measures to preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered native plants. There are 64 species, subspecies, and varieties of plants that are protected as rare under the NPPA. The NPPA prohibits take of endangered or rare native plants, but includes some exceptions for agricultural and nursery operations; emergencies; and after properly notifying CDFW for vegetation removal from canals, roads, and other sites, changes in land use, and in certain other situations. Individual land owners are required to notify the CDFW at least ten days in advance of changing land uses to allow the CDFW to salvage any rare or endangered native plant material. Sections 1600-1603 of the State Fish and Game Code All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports fish or wildlife resources are subject to the regulatory authority of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1603 of the State Fish and Game Code. Under state code, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Included are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation. Specifically, Section 1603 of the Code governs private-party individuals, and Section 1601 of the Code governs public projects. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-39 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources CDFW jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. The CDFW must be contacted by the public or private party for a Streambed Alteration Agreement for any project that might substantially impact a streambed or wetland. The CDFW has maintained a “no net loss” policy regarding potential impact and has required replacement of lost habitats on at least an acre-for-acre basis. California State Fish and Game Code §§ 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 Under these sections of the California Fish and Game Code, the Project operator is not allowed to conduct activities that would result in the taking, possessing, or destroying of any birds of prey; the taking or possessing of any migratory nongame bird; the taking, possessing, or needlessly destroying of the nest or eggs of any raptors or nongame birds; or the taking of any nongame bird pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3800. Fish and Game Code §3513 adopts the federal Department of the Interior take provisions under the MBTA. California Ocean Plan The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) have been delegated the responsibility for administering permitted discharge into the coastal marine waters in California under the federal Clean Water Act. The SWRCB prepares and adopts the Quality Control Plan for Waters of California (Ocean Plan), which establishes water quality standards that apply to ocean waters within the State of California's jurisdiction. RWQCBs adopt Water Quality Control Plans in their respective regions and regulate individual wastewater discharges through issuance of NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits. NPDES permits must implement all applicable Water Quality Control Plan water quality standards, including those in the Ocean Plan when applicable. The Ocean Plan relates to the marine biology environment because the beneficial uses identified in the Ocean Plan include biological considerations, such as: marine habitat; fish migration; fish spawning; shellfish harvesting; commercial and sport fishing; and mariculture. Local Resource Protection Ordinances and Policies City and county ordinances and General Plan policies are the primary local planning, treatment, and review mechanisms for biological resources in the study area. Other local planning policy documents are also considered where applicable. Table 4.4-3 identifies the regional and local land use plans, policies and regulations pertaining to the biological resources relevant to the Project and that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or minimizing an adverse environmental effect. Broader descriptions of these policies are included in Appendix C-3. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-40 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-3 APPLICABLE REGIONAL AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Project Planning Region County of Santa Cruz Applicable Plan Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program Specific Policy or Chapter Chapter 5: Conservation and Open Space, Objective 5.1 – 5.4 Description of Specific Plan, Policy, or Ordinance Chapter 5: Conservation and Open Space. Identify and protect plant habitat and wildlife corridors and habitats; mitigation for projects to reduce impacts on plant and animal life; preserve, protect and restore riparian corridors and wetlands; identify, preserve and restore aquatic and marine habitat. Under Objective 5.1, Biological Diversity, the County has designated sensitive habitats to protect rare or endangered species, consistent with how CEQA, CDFW, USFWS and CNPS listing of these special-status species, as well as preserve lakes, wetlands, estuaries, lagoons, streams, rivers and riparian corridors. Policies outlined to supports this objective include biotic assessments, protecting individual rare, endangered and threatened species that may not utilize one specific habitat (e.g., migratory birds); protecting wildlife habitat and species in areas that do not meet the definition of sensitive habitat, but may contain valuable wildlife resources such as migration corridors or exceptional species diversity; and, requiring restoration of damaged sensitive habitats. Objective 5.2, Riparian Corridors and Wetlands, designates and defines riparian corridors and wetlands according to physical, hydrological and vegetative features. These definitions are consistent with how riparian corridors and potential jurisdictional wetlands are defined for the purposes of CEQA analysis. In addition, The General Plan states that “development activities, land alteration and vegetation disturbance within riparian corridors and wetlands and required buffers” is prohibited unless an exception is granted under the Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Protection ordinance. Objective 5.3, Aquatic and Marine Habitats, is largely focused on coastal resources, such as shorebird nesting, marine mammals, cliff rocks and outcrops, and coastal dunes and strand. This section does address anadromous fish streams, which are present in the study area; however, the policies are specific to “new water diversions, dams and reservoirs which are constructed on anadromous fish streams.” Objective 5.4, Monterey Bay and Coastal Water Quality, presents policies to protect Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary through management of wastewater and hazardous materials (e.g., urban runoff, toxic agricultural discharge water) discharge into coastal waters. County of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program Chapter 5: Objectives 5.5 – 5.8 This section of Chapter 5 addresses Water Resources, including surface water policies including water supply; water quality and instream flows; and, groundwater policies including groundwater supply, recharge and quality. Objectives 5.5a-c address surface water protection through management and protection of watersheds’ restoration, management and protection of the San Lorenzo River Watershed to maximize quality and quantity of water resources in that basin, and to protect “Least Disturbed Watershed areas 5“ to preserve their water supply, recreation, and wildlife support values. Objective 5.6, Maintaining Adequate Streamflows, outlines policies to protect and restore in-stream flows to ensure a full range of beneficial uses including recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, and visual amenities as part of an ecosystem-based approach to watershed management. Objective 5.7, Maintaining Surface Water Quality, aims to protect and enhance surface water quality in the County’s streams, coastal lagoons and marshes by establishing best management practices on adjacent land uses. Specific policies relevant to the Project work around water bodies include 5.7.3 Erosion Control for Stream and Lagoon Protection, 5.7.4 Control Surface Runoff, and 5.7.5 Protecting Riparian Corridors and Coastal Lagoons. Objective 5.8a, Groundwater Protection, seeks to protect the quantity and quality of the County’s groundwater resources through an integrated program of land use regulation and runoff management in groundwater recharge areas, careful water quality monitoring, and management of extractions consistent with long-term sustainable water supply yields. 5 Waddell Creek Watershed, including Blooms Creek; Scott Creek and Big Creek Watershed above their confluence, and Scott Creek tributaries below Swanton Road; Jamison Creek Watershed; Clear Creek Watershed; Fall Creek Watershed; Eagle Creek Watershed; Greenoaks Creek; Año Nuevo Creek; Molino Creek; Baldwin Creek and Peasley Creek, above Highway 1; Wilder Creek, above Highway 1; Laguna Creek and Majors Creek, designated corridors between Highway 1 and the City of Santa Cruz water diversions. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-41 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-3 (CONTINUED) APPLICABLE REGIONAL AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Project Planning Region Applicable Plan Specific Policy or Chapter County of Santa Cruz (cont.) Description of Specific Plan, Policy, or Ordinance Objective 5.8b, Overdrafted Groundwater Basins, outlines policies to work with relevant water purveyors and agencies to eliminate long-term groundwater overdraft in all water basins where overdraft has been documented. The Project’s purpose is consistent with this objective, specifically policy 5.8.5 Developing Groundwater Resources, a portion of which states, “Allow development of groundwater resources when consistent with sustainable yield, protection of streamflows, and maintenance of groundwater quality”. County of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Protection County Code, Chapter 16.30 The County’s Riparian Corridor and Wetland Protection Ordinance (Chapter 16.30) identifies and defines riparian corridors and wetlands, determines the uses which are allowed in and adjacent to these habitats, and specifies required buffer setbacks and performance standards for land in and adjacent to these areas. The ordinance aims to minimize and eliminate any development activities in the riparian corridor and preserve, protect and restore riparian corridors for wildlife, water quality and other purposes. County of Santa Cruz Significant Trees Protection Ordinance County Code, Chapter 16.34 The Santa Cruz County tree protection ordinance requires a permit when the tree(s) identified for removal are located in the County’s Coastal Zone and is a “significant tree”, or the tree is located in an area considered “sensitive habitat”, as described under (C), below. While the Significant Tree Removal (Permit) Application requests information about proposed tree replacement, it is not required under the ordinance. A “Significant tree,” can include any tree, sprout clump, or group of trees that meets minimum size requirements (measured as “diameter at breast height”, or is located in “sensitive habitat”, which is defined in Chapter 16.34. Certain exemptions are also articulated in Chapter 16.34. City of Santa Cruz General Plan City of Santa Cruz General Plan Goal NRC1 is “Protected, enhanced, and sustainably managed creek systems, riparian environments, and wetlands.” Examples of policies outlined under this goal include: working with local and regional agencies to implement strategies to reduce or mitigate impacts of uses and development within the City’s watershed lands; and encouraging the restoration and enhancement of existing riparian corridors, wetlands, and water resources in accordance with the City-wide Creeks and Management Plan and The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan. City of Santa Cruz General Plan Goal NRC2 is “Protected, enhanced, and sustainable native and natural plant and animal communities and habitats.” Examples of policies outlined under this goal include: protecting sensitive habitat areas and important vegetation communities and wildlife habitat, including riparian and wetland habitat, and habitat that supports special status species; minimizing grading and filling on sensitive habitat areas; protect tree groves that provide sensitive habitat features, such as overwintering monarch butterflies. City of Santa Cruz Preservation of Heritage Trees Municipal Code Chapter 9.56 and Heritage Shrubs The City of Santa Cruz Tree Protection Ordinance protects street trees and any tree, grove of trees, shrub or group of shrubs, growing on public or private property within the city limits of the city of Santa Cruz that meet(s) the criteria of “heritage”, as defined in the ordinance, and requires a permit for significant pruning, removal or relocation City of Capitola General Plan General Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship Goal OSC-1, Promote sustainability as a foundation for Capitola’s way of life, including ensuring that the City promote sustainability by protecting natural resources, and working with neighboring cities, Santa Cruz County, AMBAG, and other governmental agencies. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Chapter 10: Natural Resources and Conservation Chapter 10, Natural Resources and Conservation, of the City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030 addresses two natural resource topics relevant to the Project: 1) creeks, riparian corridors and wetlands, and 2) plant and animal communities and habitat. The City has adopted a City-wide Creeks and Management Plan, to protect, enhance and manage the city’s riparian and wetland resources by recommending management actions to promote the preservation of riparian and wetland resources and providing a framework for permitting development adjacent to the watercourse. The city has also adopted The San Lorenzo Urban River Plan, which includes areas of the San Lorenzo River, Branciforte Creek and Jessie Street marsh within city limits. 4.4-42 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-3 (CONTINUED) APPLICABLE REGIONAL AND LOCAL LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES RELEVANT TO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Project Planning Region Applicable Plan City of Capitola General Plan General Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship Goal OSC-6, Protect Natural Habitat and Other Biological Resources, the City has established the following policies, relevant to the Project: promote the preservation of native species, habitat, and vegetation types and overall natural diversity in Capitola; protect, enhance, and, where possible, expand environmentally sensitive areas, including Soquel Lagoon, Soquel Creek riparian corridor, Noble Gulch riparian corridor, Tannery Gulch riparian corridor, Soquel Creek monarch butterfly habitat and Escalona Gulch monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) habitat; ensure new development avoids, minimizes, and/or mitigates impacts to biological resources and sensitive habitat; and, enforce the City’s Community Tree and Forest Management Ordinance to protect trees on private and public property. City of Capitola General Plan General Environmental Sustainability and Stewardship Goal OSC-7, Preserve and Enhance Capitola’s Creeks and Wetlands and OSC-8, Provide for a High Level of Water Quality, include policies to protect creeks and wetlands: maintain creek beds, riparian corridors, water courses, and associated vegetation in their natural state to assist groundwater percolation and prevent erosion and downstream sedimentation; require landscaping and revegetation of graded or disturbed areas for new development; protect the biological productivity and quality of wetlands; and, require a wetland delineation of wetland areas within a project site; and partner with and support federal, State, and local agencies to promote and enhance water quality in the Soquel Creek watershed. City of Capitola Tree and Forest Management Ordinance Municipal Code Chapter 12.12 City of Capitola’s Tree and Forest Management Ordinance, aims to protect and enhance the existing tree cover on public and private lands within the city limits. The Ordinance defines and protects “heritage trees”, including those that have a trunk with a circumference of 44 inches, or diameter of approximately 14 inches, measured at 48 inches above existing grade or at average breast height (abh), and those trees that provide a valuable wild life habitat. The Ordinance also outlines requirements for safeguarding trees during construction, demolition or tree removal, and provides permit requirements for tree removal, pruning, cutting and trimming. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Specific Policy or Chapter Description of Specific Plan, Policy, or Ordinance 4.4-43 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, implementation of the Project would result in a significant impact to biological resources if it would: • Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Approach to Analysis The impact analysis is based on the resources, references, and data collection methods identified in Section 4.4.1, Introduction. The analysis addresses direct and indirect impacts that could result from construction and operation of the Project components. Direct impacts are those that could occur at the same time and place of Project implementation, such as removal of habitat from ground disturbance. Indirect impacts are those that could occur either later in time or at a distance from the Project site, but are reasonably foreseeable, such as loss of aquatic species due to upstream effects on water quality or quantity. Direct and indirect impacts may also vary in duration and result in temporary, short-term, and long-term effects on biological resources. The analysis considers for each Project component – water purification facilities, recharge wells, and conveyance system (pipelines) – as well as staging and laydown areas, the potential impacts on special status species; sensitive natural communities; wetlands; and wildlife corridors. The Project’s potential impacts on biological resources are analyzed below according to the abovelisted CEQA criteria. Impacts are summarized in Table 4.4-4 below. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-44 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.4-1: Project construction and operation could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as candidate, sensitive or specialstatus in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LSM Impact 4.4-2: Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations (indigenous stands of Monterey pine) or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon, coastal brackish marsh in San Lorenzo River, and north central coast drainage Sacramento sucker/roach river in the San Lorenzo River), or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LSM Impact 4.4-3: Project construction and operation would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. NI Impact 4.4-4: Project construction and operation would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. LS Impact 4.4-5: Project construction and operation could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. LSM NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation NI = No Impact SOURCE: ESA Criteria with No Impact or Not Applicable There would be no impact related to the following criteria for the reasons provided below; therefore, no impact discussion is provided for these criteria. • Modify stream flows or alter groundwater-surface water exchange in a manner that would have a substantial adverse on aquatic species or their habitat. As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, groundwater modeling results, as they pertain to the groundwater level changes due to the Project, show an increase in groundwater levels in the Purisima A and B/C units near the Cabrillo College/Twin Lakes Church and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites. The Project would not lower groundwater water below the pre-Project levels nor reduce the volume of water that would flow through Project area streams. The Project would increase groundwater levels in the Basin. Such an increase would not reduce the volume or quality of water in Project area streams, such as Soquel Creek the San Lorenzo River; and as such, no associated impacts would occur to common or special-status fish and wildlife associated with these drainages as a result of reduced flows or lower water volume. As groundwater extraction can deplete baseflow by intercepting groundwater that would otherwise seep into the stream, so can groundwater recharge add baseflow (in gaining stream reaches) or decrease the rate at which water seeps out of the stream (in losing stream reaches). As discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, secondary impacts of increased baseflow can include localized flooding and erosion in the streambed Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-45 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources (i.e. hydromodification); however, as analyzed for the Project, the anticipated increase would not be enough to contribute to flooding, or stream bed erosion and hydromodification. Such a minor increase in native flows would not alter the physical parameters of the water that are important to aquatic life (e.g., temperature, pH, turbidity, conductivity, dissolved oxygen), and would not reduce the quality or availability of existing aquatic or riparian habitat for common and special-status species. As such, no impacts are anticipated to special-status species or their habitat, sensitive natural communities, or other regulated biological resources as a result of groundwater-surface water interactions from the Project. • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted or approved local or regional conservation plan. The City of Santa Cruz has prepared a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which is not yet available to the public. The HCP is expected to be finalized in 2020. The Project does not fall under the draft HCP’s description of covered activities, which address impacts of water diversions from streams and operations and maintenance activities associated with reservoirs. The Project is not covered by a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP). Implementation of the Project would result in no impact relative to this criterion as there are no adopted HCPs or NCCPs for the Project site. Therefore, this criterion is not addressed further. Impact Summary In summary, Project construction impacts would be less than significant, or less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures. Project operations are not expected to result in any unmitigable significant impacts to biological resources. Table 4.4-4 summarizes the Project’s biological resources impacts and significance determinations. Impact 4.4-1: Project construction and operation could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as candidate, sensitive or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Terrestrial and Freshwater Environment Nesting Birds Nesting birds at the construction sites and adjacent areas could be impacted by construction activities, such as clearing and grubbing, tree removal or construction-related noise. The noise, vibrations, visual disturbance, and increased human activity associated with Project construction could result in nest failure (disturbance, avoidance, or abandonment that leads to unsuccessful reproduction), or cause flight behavior that exposes an adult or its young to predators. Suitable nesting habitat may exist in or adjacent to work areas, although the likelihood of construction to affect nesting birds may be less in noisy environments. Advanced Water Treatment Facility. Construction of water purification facilities and associated infrastructure would occur on developed or highly disturbed properties, including SC WWTF, and/or the Headquarters-West Annex Site or the Chanticleer Site. All of these sites are Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-46 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources surrounded by urban activity, such as wastewater treatment plant operations, roads, offices, and parking lots; however, vegetation at these sites is composed of landscape plants, and a limited number of trees and shrubs, which, along with ruderal vegetation and bare ground, could provide nesting opportunities for birds. Mature trees could provide roosting habitat. Thus, prior to mitigation, construction associated with the water purification facilities could have a significant impact on nesting birds. Conveyance System. The conveyance system alignment options are primarily located in urban habitat along roadways and railroad crossings. Many roadways and medians include street trees or shrubs that can provide nesting habitat to birds. The proposed pipeline routes along railroad tracks would traverse less developed areas with trees and other vegetation, including grassland, suitable for nesting birds. In addition, the conveyance pipelines would cross or be sited adjacent to riparian habitats, or installed inside or be hung from bridges. Both riparian habitat and undersides of bridges can support nesting birds (e.g., mud nests attached to bridge, nesting in weep holes). Inactive cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) nests were observed under the Laurel Street Bridge and Riverside Avenue Bridge (see Figure 4.4-2a, crossings SC-2 and SC-1, respectively) during surveys in December 2016. The District would extend the pipelines across these bridges using trenchless techniques (horizontal directional drilling), or by placing the pipeline in the annular space within the bridge, or by hanging from the outside of the bridge. Pipeline construction within paved roadways has the potential to indirectly impact nesting birds due to the noise, vibrations, increased human presence, and use of mechanized equipment associated with Project construction. Prior to mitigation, construction associated with the pipeline conveyance system could, therefore, have a significant impact on nesting birds. Recharge and Monitoring Wells. Construction of recharge wells at the Monterey Avenue, Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College (North and South sites), and Twin Lakes Church would occur on developed or highly disturbed property surrounded by urban activity, such as roads, sports fields and a neighborhood park. However, the sites also include, or are adjacent to sites with mature trees and shrubs that could support nesting birds. Prior to mitigation, construction associated with the recharge wells could, therefore, have a significant impact on nesting birds. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a would reduce impacts on nesting birds by limiting construction to the non-nesting season when feasible to avoid impacts to active nests, providing focused surveys to identify active nest sites, and providing avoidance buffers for active nests and roosts. Following the implementation of this measure, impacts to nesting birds from Project implementation would be less than significant. Special-status Bats Special-status bats could be impacted if they are present within mature trees that are removed or pruned to accommodate Project construction, or within buildings that would be modified by the Project. Tree removal could be required at the Headquarters-West Annex Site and some sections of the conveyance pipeline. An abandoned building on the Chanticleer Site would be demolished, and structures at the District Headquarters and at the SC WWTF could be relocated. Trees have the potential to be affected at creek crossing locations or in roadway areas adjacent to eucalyptus groves, riparian habitats, parks, and other areas supporting mature trees. If removal were to occur Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-47 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources during periods of winter torpor, any bats present would likely not survive the disturbance (Tuttle, 1991). This would be a significant impact. Advanced Water Treatment Facility. Mature trees near the facility could provide roosting habitat for bats. For these reasons, construction associated with the water purification facilities could have a significant impact on roosting bats. Conveyance System. The conveyance system alignment options are primarily located in urban habitat along roadways and railroad crossings. The conveyance pipelines would cross or be sited adjacent to riparian habitats, or installed inside or be hung from bridges. Both riparian habitat and undersides of bridges can support roosting bats. Recharge and Monitoring Wells. Construction of recharge wells at the Monterey Avenue, Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College (North and South sites), and Twin Lakes Church would occur on and near areas with mature trees that could support roosting bats. Project activities identified above have the potential to indirectly impact roosting bats due to the noise, vibrations, increased human presence, and use of mechanized equipment associated with Project construction. The implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1b would reduce impacts on special-status bats by providing avoidance buffers for active roosts and requiring measures to avoid and minimize impacts on special-status bats such as limiting removal of trees or structures with potential bat roosting habitat to the time of year when bats are active to avoid disturbing bats during the maternity roosting season or months of winter torpor. Thus, impacts to roosting bats from Project implementation would be less than significant. Western Pond Turtle Proposed construction activities include pipeline crossings of streams. For creek or river crossings where there is an existing bridge, the preferred method of pipeline installation would be to either hang the pipe from the bridge or place it in the bridge annular space. Where these methods are not feasible, the Project would use trenchless drilling techniques. Some of these techniques (e.g., jack-and-bore, horizontal directional drilling) require launching and receiving bore pits, which are typically up to 40 feet by 25 feet. Horizontal directional drilling requires drilling fluid to fill the boring, which is then enlarged by a back reamer or hole opener to required diameter. Horizontal directional drilling fluids typically consist of bentonite clay and polymer. Construction work within 150 feet of streams have the potential to impact the western pond turtle either through direct injury or mortality, or by exposure to accidental release of constructionrelated pollutants. If construction personnel, vehicles or heavy equipment were to access riparian areas, western pond turtle could potentially be directly impacted through injury or mortality, and this would be a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, and 4.4-1f would reduce impacts on western pond turtle to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive aquatic sites, providing environmental training to construction personnel, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-48 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources providing general protection measures, and specific survey and relocation measures for western pond turtles, if encountered. In addition, the Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 provides safety precautions for horizontal directional drilling operations. Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to western pond turtle from Project implementation would be less than significant. Special Status Amphibians Four local special-status amphibian species were identified in the Project region that are highly dependent on wetland or riparian habitat: California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, California giant salamander, and Santa Cruz black salamander. However, even if they were present in drainages near work locations, Project activities would not impact three of these species, California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, and California giant salamander, for the following reasons: • The pipeline alignments are within city streets in an urban setting, and proposed installation at stream channels would not enter or disturb riparian habitat; • California red-legged frog populations in the regional areas occur generally outside of urbanized centers, north and west of the City, and this species is not known from drainages or lagoons in the study area; • No Project elements are proposed within active stream channels or riparian corridors that could support California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, or California giant salamander; • Project activities at the two identified sites that may provide foothill yellow-legged frog and California giant salamander habitat on Soquel Creek would occur by attaching the pipeline to, or within, the Soquel-Bargetto Bridge or the Porter Street Bridge, with no impacts to riparian or aquatic habitat; • Infrastructure improvements are proposed in areas that do not provide upland or aquatic habitat for California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, or California giant salamander; and • With the exception of Soquel Creek, drainages in the study area are considered to provide poor quality habitat for special-status amphibians. The possible exception is the potential presence of Santa Cruz black salamander in grasslands and mixed woodland habitats that occur between 7th Ave and 17th Ave, along the railroad alignment north of Schwan Lagoon. If this species is present in this area at the time of construction, individuals could be directly impacted as a result of injury or mortality due to construction activities from the use of vehicles, or heavy equipment, or as a result of salamanders seeking cover under staged materials. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, and 4.4-1f would reduce impacts on special-status amphibians to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive sites, providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, and specific surveys and relocation measures for Santa Cruz black salamander in suitable habitat. In addition, the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 provides safety precautions for horizontal directional drilling operations near drainages. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-49 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to Santa Cruz black salamander and other special-status amphibians from Project implementation would be less than significant. Special Status Fish Salmonids (coho salmon and steelhead) are known to be present in the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek, and may be present in other streams and tributaries that would be crossed by the conveyance system. The conveyance pipelines could be placed inside the Laurel Street Bridge or Riverside Avenue Bridge over the San Lorenzo River. If that were not feasible, HDD would be used. A pipeline would also be attached to the side of the Soquel-Bargetto Bridge or Porter Street Bridge over Soquel Creek. For both bridge crossings, none of the methods would require in-water work or access to riparian banks. Horizontal direction drilling or jack-and-bore trenchless techniques may occur for all other pipeline stream crossings. The accidental release of construction-related fluids or water containing high levels of pollutants or suspended sediments could have a significant impact on salmonids. Tidewater goby is restricted to brackish water, so while it would not be found in most streams where the conveyance pipe is crossing, any such releases into the lower reaches of the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek, as well as tributaries of Schwan Lagoon and Corcoran Lagoon, could have a significant impact on the species. As discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water (Impact 4.11-1), mandatory compliance with the California NPDES Construction General Permit would minimize surface water quality impacts, thereby preventing substantial indirect construction impacts on salmonid habitat in the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek, as well as tidewater goby habitat in the Corcoran Lagoon. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 provides safety precautions for horizontal directional drilling operations. With adherence to this measure, impacts to special-status fish from Project implementation would be less than significant. Ohlone Tiger Beetle The pipeline option proposed along the railroad right-of-way, north of Schwan Lagoon, would be installed using open cut construction techniques, and could potentially impact Ohlone tiger beetle. Portions of the area north of Schwan Lagoon support coastal terrace prairie, the only habitat associated with Ohlone tiger beetle. The pipeline alignment passes beneath a dense tree canopy, which is 50 to 100 feet from the open, sunny grassland habitat preferred by this species; however, the species is not strictly restricted to open, sunny habitat, and therefore installation of the pipeline at this location could have a significant impact on Ohlone tiger beetle through temporary loss of habitat, crushing of larval burrows by equipment and staging of materials, and the introduction of non-native plant species into coastal terrace prairie habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, and 4.4-1g would reduce impacts on Ohlone tiger beetle to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive habitat, providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, and requiring focused surveys for Ohlone tiger beetle in suitable Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-50 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources habitat. Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to Ohlone tiger beetle from Project implementation would be less than significant. Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites Overwintering colonies of monarch butterflies on the construction site and adjacent areas could be affected by construction activities, such as clearing and grubbing, tree removal or construction-related noise. The noise, vibrations, visual disturbance, and increased human activity associated with Project construction could result in colony disturbance to thermoregulation that could cause monarchs to fly in cold or wet conditions, and could interrupt mating and/or result in colony failure. Suitable overwintering habitat exists adjacent to work areas, along Wharf Road, a fairly busy residential street with car and pedestrian traffic; therefore, the likelihood of construction to affect overwintering monarchs at this site may be less than in an undisturbed environment. Colony failure would be a significant impact under CEQA. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, and 4.4-1h would reduce impacts on monarch butterfly to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive habitat, providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, and requiring focused surveys for monarch butterflies for activities that are performed in near proximity to suitable habitat. Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to monarch butterfly from Project implementation would be less than significant. Special Status Plants Special status plants are not expected to occur at the AWPF sites or recharge well sites. The remainder of the conveyance pipelines would generally be constructed in urban areas interspersed with watersheds and other natural features. As shown on Table 4.4-1, occupied or suitable habitat for a range of special-status plants exists in the Project vicinity. The majority of the proposed pipelines would be installed under existing paved roadways or railroad tracks, or within or on the sides of bridges, and would not result in direct impacts on special-status plant species, because they don’t have potential to occur in these developed areas; however, in some cases, pipelines would cross or lie adjacent to riparian habitat, jurisdictional waters and coastal terrace prairie where some special-status plants could occur. Vegetation clearing and construction activities in undeveloped areas where special-status plant surveys are pending, such as the pipeline route north of Schwan Lagoon, may occur where there is potential to encounter special-status plants. Special status plants could be crushed or destroyed during equipment staging and laydown, clearing and grubbing, pipeline trenching, or other construction activities, accidentally covered in sediment from sidecasting or stockpiling soils, or trampled by worker foot traffic, which would be a potentially significant impact. CNDDB records of Santa Cruz tarplant exist in the terrace north of Schwan Lagoon, just south of the Southern Pacific Railroad track, and numerous additional observations exist within 0.25 to 2 miles from the Project site. In addition, Santa Cruz tarplant critical habitat is present north of Schwan Lagoon (USFWS, 2018b), and this species could occur locally within the 7th Ave to 17th Ave alignment, north of Schwan Lagoon. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-51 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Native stands of Monterey pine have the potential to occur in the study area and be impacted by tree removal, root compaction and excavation activities. Impacts to native stands of Monterey pine would be considered significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, 4.4-1i, 4.4-1j, and 4.4-1k would reduce impacts to special-status plants to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring within 150 feet of sensitive habitat, providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, requiring focused surveys for rare plants within suitable habitat, avoiding Santa Cruz tarplant populations, protection and replacement of native Monterey pine stands, and preventing the introduction of non-native plant seeds. Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to special-status plants from Project implementation would be less than significant. Impact Conclusion Construction of the proposed Project could result in potentially significant impacts from erosion, sediment transport, hazardous waste in waterways, which could have a substantial adverse effect on special-status fish and amphibians. Temporary loss of habitat could negatively impact Ohlone tiger beetle, and rare plants. Construction could disrupt breeding and foraging habitat for nesting birds, raptors and bats; and disrupt overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies. However, through adherence to the Construction General Permit and SWPPP, as discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water (Impact 4.11-1), and implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1a through 4.4-1k, described below, these impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a: Perform preconstruction nesting bird surveys in areas that provide suitable habitat. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 applies to all Project components. Project construction activities should avoid the nesting season of February 15 through August 31, if feasible. If seasonal avoidance is not possible, then no sooner than 30 days prior to the start of any Project activity, a biologist experienced in conducting nesting bird surveys shall survey the Project area and all accessible areas within 500 feet for nesting birds. If nesting birds are identified, the biologist shall define a suitable protective buffer around the nest and no activities shall occur within this buffered area. The buffer area limits would ensure that construction activities would not cause an adult to abandon an active nest or young or change an adult’s behavior so it could not care for an active nest or young. Typical buffers are 150 feet for songbirds and 300 feet for raptors, but may be decreased in coordination with CDFW according to site-specific, Project-specific, activity-specific considerations such as visual barriers between the nest and the type of activity, decibel levels associated with the activity relative to baseline noise levels, and the species of nesting bird and its tolerance of the activity. Construction activities that are conducted within any reduced buffers may be conducted in the presence of a qualified biological monitor, until the biological monitor determines that the reduced buffer is effective. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-52 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.4-1b: Perform preconstruction bat surveys. Applies to Headquarters-West Annex site, Chanticleer site, conveyance pipeline stream crossings 3 - 18, and the Willowbrook Lane. Twin Lakes Church, and Cabrillo College South Recharge Well sites. In advance of tree and structure removal, a preconstruction survey for special-status bats shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to characterize potential bat habitat and identify active roost sites within the Project site. Should potential roosting habitat or active bat roosts be found in trees and/or structures to be removed under the Project, the following measures shall be implemented: • Removal of trees and structures shall occur when bats are active, approximately between the periods of March 1 to April 15 and August 15 to October 15, and outside of bat maternity roosting season (approximately April 15 – August 31) and outside of months of winter torpor (approximately October 15 – February 28), to the extent feasible. • If removal of trees and structures during the periods when bats are active is not feasible and active bat roosts being used for maternity or hibernation purposes are found on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site where tree and structure removal is planned, a no-disturbance buffer of 100 feet shall be established around these roost sites until they are determined to be no longer active by the qualified biologist. • The qualified biologist shall be present during tree and structure removal if active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibernation purposes, are present. Trees and structures with active roosts shall be removed only when no rain is occurring or is forecast to occur for three days and when daytime temperatures are at least 50°F. • Removal of trees with active or potentially active roost sites shall follow a two-step removal process: 1. On the first day of tree removal and under supervision of the qualified biologist, branches and limbs not containing cavities or fissures in which bats could roost, shall be cut only using chainsaws. 2. On the following day and under the supervision of the qualified biologist, the remainder of the tree may be removed, either using chainsaws or other equipment (e.g. excavator or backhoe). • Removal of structures containing or suspected to contain active bat roosts, which are not being used for maternity or hibernation purposes, shall be dismantled under the supervision of the qualified biologist in the evening and after bats have emerged from the roost to forage. Structures shall be partially dismantled to significantly change the roost conditions, causing bats to abandon and not return to the roost. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1c: Provide Construction Monitoring near Sensitive Habitats. Applies to sensitive habitats within the Project site, including conveyance pipeline stream crossings, and coastal terrace prairie. Construction activities, including equipment staging, spoils piles, parking or development of bore pits, occurring off pavement and within 100 feet of mixed riparian woodland and within 100 feet of coastal terrace prairie habitat between 7th Ave. and 17th Ave. shall be Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-53 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources monitored by a qualified biologist. 6 Prior to the initiation of construction, the District and/or representatives of the District shall retain a qualified biologist to oversee compliance with avoidance and minimization measures for all special-status species and sensitive habitats. The qualified biologist shall be onsite daily during all fencing, grading and ground disturbance activities in the above areas. The qualified biologist shall have in their possession a copy of all compliance measures while work is being conducted onsite, and shall ensure that District’s onsite representatives and contractors also maintain copies of the compliance measures on the site. To facilitate the qualified biologist’s role, District shall ensure that the qualified biologist is fully apprised of all decisions that change or materially affect the schedule, methods, and location of work that is subject to the protective measures for biological resources. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1d: Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program. Applies to the entire Project area including water purification facilities, conveyance system and recharge wells. Prior to starting work, all construction workers at the Project areas shall attend a Construction Worker Environmental Awareness Training and Education Program developed and presented by a qualified biologist. The program shall include information on federal and state-listed species in the study area, as well as other special-status wildlife and plant species and sensitive natural communities that may be encountered during construction activities. The training shall include: information on special-status species’ life history and legal protections; the definition of “take” under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and California Endangered Species Act (CESA); the measures the District and/or its contractors have committed to implementing to protect special-status species and sensitive natural communities; reporting requirements and communication protocols; specific measures that each worker shall employ to avoid “take” of specialstatus species; and penalties for violation of FESA and/or CESA. Training shall be documented as follows: 1. An acknowledgement form shall be signed by each worker indicating that environmental training has been completed. 2. A sticker shall be placed on hard hats indicating that the workers have completed the environmental training. Construction workers shall not be permitted to operate equipment within the construction area unless they have attended the training and are wearing hard hats with the required sticker. 3. A copy of the training transcript/training video and/or DVD, as well as a list of the names of all personnel who attended the training and copies of the signed acknowledgement forms, shall be submitted to the District. 6 The term “qualified biologist” is defined as an individual who shall possess, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree in biology, ecology, wildlife biology or closely related field. The term “biological monitor” or “qualified biological monitor” is defined as holding similar educational credentials to those of a qualified biologist and who has functioned as an environmental inspector or monitor on at least two construction projects within the preceding two years. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-54 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.4-1e: General Avoidance and Protection Measures. Applies to the entire Project area including water purification facilities and recharge wells. The District shall ensure that the following general measures are implemented by the contractor(s) during construction to avoid or minimize impacts on biological resources: • Within natural habitat, the construction contractor(s) shall minimize the extent of the construction disturbance as much as feasible by defining the project boundary with stakes, rope or equivalent and working within that area at all times. • Staging areas shall be located at least 50 feet from riparian habitat, creeks, and wetlands. • If vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed at least 50 feet from riparian habitat, creeks, and wetlands. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1f: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Western Pond Turtle and Santa Cruz Black Salamander. Applies to all conveyance pipelines within 100 feet of streams (pond turtle) and within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between 7th Avenue and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center (pond turtle and black salamander). Preconstruction surveys for western pond turtle (WPT) and Santa Cruz black salamander (SCBS) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to vegetation removal, development of bore pits, equipment staging or other off pavement construction-related activity, as specified below: 1. Prior to conducting the surveys, the qualified biologist shall prepare a relocation plan that describes the appropriate survey and handling methods for WPT and SCBS and identify nearby relocation sites where individuals would be relocated if found during the preconstruction surveys. The relocation plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review prior to the start of construction activities and any relocations. The animal shall be relocated to a similar type of habitat or better from where it was relocated. 2. Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within 5 days prior to, and again immediately prior to, vegetation removal or grading to identify any WPT and SCBS. 3. If WPT or SCBS are observed within the construction area, a qualified biologist shall relocate the individual according to the relocation plan above. 4. The qualified biologist shall monitor vegetation removal and grading in the vicinity of Schwann Lagoon, between 7th Ave and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center to identify and relocate pond turtle and black salamander as necessary. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1g: Avoidance and Protection Measures for Ohlone Tiger Beetle Applies to coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between 7th Avenue and the parking lot for Simpkins Family Swim Center. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-55 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources A habitat survey for Ohlone tiger beetle (OTB) shall be conducted within 100 feet of the pipeline alignment by a qualified entomologist to determine if suitable OTB habitat is present. The survey should be conducted prior to the start of construction-related activity, including clearing and grubbing, materials staging, and installation of fencing near coastal terrace prairie habitat. The exact timing shall be decided in consultation with the entomologist to allow enough time for completion of presence/absence surveys, if necessary, prior to the start of construction. If the entomologist determines that there is no suitable OTB habitat within 100 feet of the study area, no further action is required. If suitable OTB habitat is present, the qualified entomologist shall conduct a presence/absence survey to determine if OTB is present within 100 feet of the Project area. If OTB is not present, no further action is required. If OTB is present within 100 feet of the Project area, the entomologist will identify the configuration of occupied habitat and shall mark areas occupied by OTB with pin flags, rope, or another equivalent method. Project construction activities shall avoid areas occupied by OTB. If occupied habitat cannot be avoided, the entomologist shall be consulted to determine whether relocation of OTB is feasible and to identify a relocation site. If relocation is not feasible, the District shall compensate for permanent impacts to OTB by restoring habitat per Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1h: Avoidance and Protection of Overwintering Monarch Butterfly Colonies Applies to Soquel Creek riparian corridor directly adjacent to the conveyance pipeline alignment on Wharf Road, between Pacific Coast Manor on the southern end and Soquel Wharf Road on the northern end; the eucalyptus grove adjacent to the pipeline alignment at Kennedy Road and Park Avenue; and the eucalyptus grove adjacent to Cabrillo College Drive near Stream Crossing 17. Construction activities in and around documented butterfly overwintering sites shall occur outside of the overwintering season (November 1 to March 31), to the greatest extent feasible, to avoid potential impacts on overwintering monarch butterflies. However, when it is not feasible to avoid the overwintering season and construction activities take place during this time, the following measures shall apply: • Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted for overwintering monarch butterfly sites within 100 feet of the construction areas. • Surveys for overwintering aggregations of monarch butterflies shall be conducted over the winter season (November to first week of March) prior to construction activities. A minimum of two surveys shall be conducted: one in late November and the other during the week of January 1. Surveys shall follow survey methods specified by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation (Xerces, 2004). • If an active overwintering site is located, work activities shall be delayed within 100 feet of the site location until avoidance measures have been implemented. Appropriate avoidance measures shall include the following measures (which may be modified as a result of coordination with the CDFW to provide equally effective measures): Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-56 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources − If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities would not affect an active overwintering site, activities may proceed without restriction. − A minimum 100-foot no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the overwintering site to avoid disturbance or destruction until after the overwintering period has ended. If site conditions warrant a smaller buffer, the extent of the no-disturbance buffer may be decreased by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW. − Throughout the year, the District shall avoid removing or trimming trees utilized by monarch butterflies or trees adjacent to the winter roost to prevent indirect changes to the humidity, wind exposure, and temperature within the immediate vicinity of the roost site. Any routine tree trimming shall be done between April and August to eliminate the risk of disturbance to monarch colonies, and shall be conducted under the guidance of a qualified monarch butterfly specialist if butterflies have been documented in the Project area. Mitigation Measure 4-4.1i: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for SpecialStatus Plants Applies to the conveyance pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, between the Simpkins Family Swim center parking lot and Stream Crossing-15. Botanical surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities (CDFG, 2009). Surveys shall maximize the likelihood of locating special-status species, be floristic in nature, include areas of potential indirect impacts, be conducted in the field at the time of year when species are both evident and identifiable, and be replicated and spaced throughout the growing season to accurately determine what plants exist on the site. Special care shall be taken to survey the area north of Schwan Lagoon and immediately south of the Southern Pacific Rail Road alignment where Santa Cruz tarplant populations were observed between 1986 and 2007 (CDFW, 2018). If no special-status plants are identified, no further action is required to avoid or minimize impacts to these species. If special-status plants are encountered in the work area, they should be avoided. If they cannot be avoided, the District shall, in coordination with the USFWS and/or CDFW (as applicable based on plant rarity), avoid plants through Project design, protect plants from construction activities through the use of exclusion fencing and signage, or relocate plants to other suitable habitat nearby. Prior to construction, staging areas shall be identified that avoid impacts to Santa Cruz tarplants and any other special-status plants identified, and construction exclusion fencing shall be used to define the work area and minimize disturbance to these areas. The fencing shall be maintained through the construction phase and monitored on a weekly basis during construction to ensure protection of tarplants and their habitat. If avoidance is not feasible, rare plants and their seeds shall be salvaged and relocated, and habitat restoration shall be provided to replace any destroyed special-status plant occurrences at a minimum 1:1 ratio (i.e., no net loss) or as specified by resource agencies based on area of lost habitat. Compensation for loss of special-status plant populations shall include the restoration or enhancement of temporarily impacted areas, and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-57 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources management of restored areas. Restoration or reintroduction shall be located on-site (i.e., at Schwan Lagoon). At a minimum, the restoration areas shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year: a. The compensation area shall be at least the same size as the impact area. b. Vegetation cover and composition in special-status plant restoration areas near Schwan Lagoon shall emulate existing Santa Cruz tarplant reference populations. c. Monitoring shall demonstrate the continued presence of rare plants in the restoration area. d. Invasive species cover shall be less than or equal to the invasive species cover in the impact area. Additionally, restored populations shall have greater than the number of individuals of the impacted population, in an area greater than or equal to the size of the impacted population, for at least 3 consecutive years without irrigation, weeding, or other manipulation of the restoration site. The Habitat Monitoring Plan to be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan) shall detail the monitoring requirements and success criteria. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1j: Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine. Applies to the pipeline alignment between Soquel Avenue and 7th Avenue; the pipeline alignment between the Simpkins Family Swim Center parking lot and 7th Avenue; the pipeline alignment along Wharf Road between Grace Street and Soquel Wharf Road; the pipeline alignment along Kennedy Drive; and the Willowbrook Recharge Well site. A qualified botanist or arborist shall conduct surveys for native stands of Monterey pine prior to completion of final Project design documents. Individual Monterey pine trees existing within the construction work area shall be evaluated to determine if they are native occurrences, relics, or otherwise naturally-occurring remnants of the past historic range. Maps depicting the results of these surveys shall be prepared for consideration during final facility design. Native stands of Monterey pine could occur at the identified facility sites and pipeline alignments based on the historical extent of native Monterey pines and biological reconnaissance surveys. Project construction activities shall be planned to avoid impacts on native stands of Monterey pine. Any native stands of Monterey pines located within the anticipated construction disturbance area shall be fenced or flagged for avoidance prior to construction, and a biological monitor shall be present to ensure compliance with offlimits areas. If removal of native stands of Monterey pine cannot be avoided, trees of a minimum dbh of 8 inches shall be replaced at a 2:1 ratio for trees removed or directly impacted by construction activities. Only local Monterey pine genetic stock shall be used for replanting at the Project site. Replacement plantings shall be planted contiguous with other individuals of the same species in areas that are determined to have suitable site conditions. Protective fencing shall be installed around the seedlings to protect against disturbance. Replacement trees shall be maintained and monitored for a period of five years and have a minimum of 70 percent survival in the fifth monitoring year to ensure Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-58 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources success. The Habitat Monitoring Plan to be prepared in accordance with Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Habitat Monitoring Plan) shall detail the monitoring requirements and success criteria. This mitigation measures applies to native stands of Monterey pines. Independent of whether Monterey pines in the Project area are considered native stands, individual trees may be subject to local tree ordinances; see Mitigation Measure 4.4-5 (Compliance with Local Tree Policies and Ordinances). Mitigation Measure 4.4-1k: Control Measures for Spread of Invasive Plants. Applies to coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon along the pipeline alignment along the railroad tracks north of Schwan Lagoon, from the Simpkins Family Swim Center parking lot to Stream Crossing-15. Construction best management practices shall be implemented in construction areas within or adjacent to lands with native plant communities that may be susceptible to nonnative plant species invasion to prevent the spread of invasive plants, seed, propagules, and pathogens through the following actions: 1) Avoid driving in or operating equipment in weed-infested areas outside of fenced work areas and restrict travel to established roads and rights of way. 2) Avoid leaving exposed soil or construction materials in areas with the potential for invasive plants (e.g., in staging areas). Non-active stockpiles shall be covered with plastic or a comparable material. 3) Clean tools, equipment, and vehicles before transporting materials and before entering and leaving worksites (e.g., wheel washing stations at Project site access points). Inspect vehicles and equipment for weed seeds and/or propagules stuck in tire treads or mud on the vehicle to minimize the risk of carrying them to unaffected areas. Designate areas within active construction sites for cleaning and inspections. 4) Only certified, weed-free, plastic-free imported erosion control materials (or rice straw in upland areas) shall be used for the Project. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l: Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Applies to any riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitat temporarily impacted by construction activities. If temporary disturbance to riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitat within the Project area cannot be avoided, and will be temporarily impacted by construction activities, the District shall develop and submit a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) to the appropriate resource agencies (CCC, CDFW, CCRWQCB, USACE, USFWS, and local agencies that require a habitat mitigation and monitoring plan) for approval prior to Project construction. The MMP shall be a comprehensive document that describes all of restoration requirements, including the required performance standards, identified in Mitigation Measures 4-4.1i (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special Status Plants), 4.4-1j (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine), 4.4-2a (Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat), and 4.4-2b (Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-59 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources The MMP shall be implemented at all riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitats temporarily impacted by construction activities. The MMP shall outline measures to restore, improve, or re-establish riparian, wetland or coastal terrace prairie habitats on the site, and shall include the following elements: 1. Name and contact information for the property owner of the land on which the mitigation will take place. 2. Identification of the water source for supplemental irrigation, if needed. 3. Identification of depth to groundwater. 4. Topsoil salvage and storage methods for areas that support special-status plants. 5. Site preparation guidelines to prepare for planting, including coarse and fine grading. 6. Plant material procurement, including assessment of risk of introduction of plant pathogens through use of nursery-grown container stock vs. collection and propagation of site-specific plant materials, or use of seeds. 7. Planting plan outlining species selection, planting locations and spacing, for each vegetation type to be restored. 8. Planting methods, including containers, hydroseed or hydromulch, weed barriers and cages, as needed. 9. Soil amendment recommendations, if needed. 10. Irrigation plan, with proposed rates (in gallons per minute), schedule (i.e. recurrence interval), and seasonal guidelines for watering. 11. Site protection plan to prevent unauthorized access, accidental damage and vandalism. 12. Weeding and other vegetation maintenance tasks and schedule, with specific thresholds for acceptance of invasive species. 13. Performance standards by which successful completion of mitigation can be assessed in comparison to a relevant baseline or reference site, and by which remedial actions will be triggered. 14. Success criteria shall include the minimum performance standards described in Mitigation Measures 4-4.1i (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Special Status Plants), 4.4-1j (Avoidance and Minimization Measures for Native Stands of Monterey Pine), 4.4-2a (Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat), and 4.4-2b (Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie) (see Table 4.4-5). 15. Monitoring methods and schedule. 16. Reporting requirements and schedule. 17. Adaptive management and corrective actions, such as re-seeding, changes to the irrigation regime, and increased effort to control non-natives, to achieve the established success criteria. 18. Educational outreach program to inform operations and maintenance departments of local land management and utility agencies of the mitigation purpose of restored areas to prevent accidental damages. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-60 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-5 MINIMUM SUCCESS CRITERIA FOR VEGETATION RESTORATION Parameter Field Indicator/Measurement Vegetative Cover 70 percent relative cover (relative cover is cover compared with baseline) of typical native and naturalized species known from the local region by the end of the fifth monitoring year. Individual Native Trees: 70 percent survivorship by the fifth monitoring year. Invasive Species At the end of the fifth monitoring year, a restoration area shall have no more cover by invasive species than the baseline. Invasive plant species shall be defined as any high-level species on the California Invasive Plant Council Inventory. _________________________ Impact 4.4-2: Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Terrestrial and Freshwater Environment This section addresses impacts on the sensitive natural communities, including riparian habitat, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), and designated critical habitat. As described in Section 4.4.2, Environmental Setting, the Project area includes several sensitive natural communities: riparian habitat, coastal terrace prairie, coastal brackish marsh, and north central coast drainage Sacramento sucker/roach river. In addition to these sensitive communities, ESHAs within the study area include wetlands, coastal lagoon and eucalyptus woodland, native stands of Monterey pine, and any habitat supporting threatened or endangered plant and animal species. Riparian habitat occurs outside of the Project corridor at pipeline stream crossings, as well as in the riparian corridor (RC-1) northwest of Soquel Avenue pipeline stream crossing SC-3, as presented in Figure 4.4-2a. If the pipeline along Soquel Avenue were installed along the south to southeast side of the Avenue, which is approximately 70 feet from RC-1, there would be no construction impacts on the subject riparian habitat. If the alignment were installed along the north side of Soquel Avenue, Project construction could temporarily impact the riparian habitat north of and adjacent to the work area. Project construction along the pipeline alignment would involve activities such as grading, trenching, and excavation activities that could modify riparian habitat. Coastal terrace prairie, a recognized CDFW sensitive natural community, is present in the study area north of Schwan Lagoon, and may be present within 50 to 100 feet south of the pipeline alignment between the west and east arms of Schwan Lagoon. Activities associated with construction of the conveyance pipeline north of Schwan Lagoon such as trenching, excavation, grading, establishment of spoils piles, use of vehicles and heavy equipment and setting up staging and laydown areas near the alignment could temporarily affect coastal terrace prairie habitat through compaction of soil, excavation of soils and the native seedbank, and introduction of nonnative seeds. These impacts would be considered significant, but for the reasons discussed in Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-61 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Impact 4.4-1, would be reduced to less than significant by implementing Mitigation Measure 4.4-2b: Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, central California coast steelhead critical habitat occurs in the San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek, and tributaries to Arana Gulch. Tidewater goby critical habitat occurs in Corcoran Lagoon, which is outside and downstream of the study area. In addition, the Santa Cruz County LCP identifies as ESHA indigenous stands of Monterey pine, which could also occur within the Project area. No modifications are proposed to designated critical habitat. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.4-1c, 4.4-1d, 4.4-1e, 4.4-2a, and 4.4-2b would reduce impacts on sensitive natural communities to a less-than-significant level by providing biological monitoring near sensitive areas, providing environmental training to construction personnel, providing general protection measures, minimizing disturbance to riparian habitat in the Project area, and avoiding and protecting native stands of Monterey pines. Following the implementation of these measures, impacts to sensitive natural communities from Project implementation would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures Measure 4.4-2a: Minimize Disturbance to Riparian Habitat. Applies to all stream crossings, Riparian Corridor-1, and riparian habitat within Willowbrook Park. If work is proposed adjacent to riparian habitat, riparian areas shall be clearly delineated with flagging by a qualified biologist. Riparian areas shall be separated and protected from the work area through silt fencing, amphibian-friendly fiber rolls, or other appropriate erosion control material. Bore pit locations, material staging, and all other Project-related activity shall be located as far possible from riparian areas. If riparian areas cannot be avoided, any temporarily impacted areas shall be restored to preconstruction conditions or better at the end of construction. Compensation for permanent impacts shall be provided at a 2:1 ratio, or at a ratio defined by the relevant regulatory agencies (e.g., CDFW and the USACE). Compensation for loss of riparian areas may be in the form of on-site or off-site creation, restoration, or enhancement of habitat. At a minimum the restoration or compensation sites shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year following restoration: a. Temporarily impacted areas are returned to pre-Project conditions or greater b. Native vegetation cover shall be at least 70 percent of baseline/impact area native vegetation cover c. No more cover by invasives than the baseline/impact area Restoration and mitigation activities shall be described in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-62 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Measure 4.4-2b: Avoidance and Protection of Coastal Terrace Prairie. Applies to coastal terrace prairie between 7th Ave and 17th Ave, north of Schwan Lagoon. A qualified botanist shall conduct a survey to define the presence and extent of coastal terrace prairie habitat in the area north of Schwan Lagoon within 100 feet of the proposed conveyance pipeline alignment. If coastal terrace prairie is identified, the qualified botanist shall clearly delineate the northern edge of the habitat so that it can be avoided during Project construction. If coastal terrace prairie can be fully avoided, no further action is required to avoid or mitigate losses to this habitat type; however, Mitigation Measure 4.41k (Control Measures for Spread of Invasive Plants) would still apply to reduce the potential for weed introduction into off-site habitat. If identified, coastal terrace prairie habitat shall be separated and protected from the work area through the placement of construction fencing (e.g., orange fencing). Excavation, vehicular traffic, material staging, and all other Project-related activity shall be located outside of coastal terrace prairie habitat to the extent possible. If coastal terrace prairie cannot be avoided, any temporarily-impacted areas shall be restored to pre-construction conditions or better at the end of construction. Compensation for permanent impacts shall be provided at a ratio of 1:1 (i.e., no net loss) or as specified by resource agencies. Compensation may be in the form of permanent on-site or off-site creation, restoration, enhancement of habitat. At a minimum the restoration or compensation sites shall meet the following performance standards by the fifth year following restoration: a. Temporarily impacted areas are returned to pre-Project conditions or better. b. Native vegetation cover shall be at least 70 percent of baseline/impact area native vegetation cover. c. No more cover by invasive plants than the baseline/impact area Restoration and mitigation activities shall be described in the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan prescribed by Mitigation Measure 4.4-1l (Mitigation and Monitoring Plan). Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Marine Environment Due to the Project’s proximity to the biologically-rich Monterey Bay marine community, a series of state and federally-protected marine areas and habitats occur within the vicinity of the study area. These marine areas and habitats are summarized below: • Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Much of the study area is within the boundaries of the MBNMS, one of thirteen National Marine Sanctuaries in the United States, which was designated in accordance with the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. • Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Under the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act, the study area is in designated EFH that is overseen by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council. Managed fish found in the study area include, but are not limited to, salmonid species, rockfish, roundfish, and flatfish. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-63 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources • Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. Additionally, the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Act identifies the offshore rocky areas as Rocky Reefs HAPC, a subset of EFH, as described previously. This area includes “waters, substrates and other biogenic features associated with hard substrate (e.g., bedrock, boulders, cobble, gravel) to mean higher high water (MHHW).” • Critical Habitat. Portions of the study area are in designated critical habitat for the green sturgeon, black abalone, and leatherback sea turtle Construction Impacts As discussed above, the Project would not involve any construction work within the marine environment. Therefore, no conflicts with sensitive natural communities within the marine environment would result from Project construction. Operational Impacts Operational impacts from Project implementation would be limited to changes in treated effluent discharged from the existing SC WWTF ocean outfall. As discussed in Impact 4.4-1, above, from the Project’s alterations to the effluent discharged into Monterey Bay would not be expected to result in significant impacts to water quality or marine species in the vicinity of the discharge point. As described further in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources - Surface Water (Impact 4.11-2), water quality constituent levels would be subject to a number of water quality regulations and standards, including those specified in the NPDES permit for SC WWTF effluent discharges. Through adherence to these requirements, the effluent water quality would remain in keeping with Ocean Plan objectives, and potential effects on sensitive natural marine communities would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.4-3: Project construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. (No Impact) Terrestrial and Freshwater Environment As described in Section 4.4.2, Environmental Setting, federally protected wetlands and waters of the U.S. are existent along pipeline alignment options. Within the study area, instream wetlands (Potential wetland [PW]-2 and PW-3, presented in Figure 4.4-2a) occur on both sides of the Laurel Street bridge crossing of the San Lorenzo River at SC-2, within approximately 15 to 30 feet upstream and downstream of the bridge. Because in-water work is not proposed at these sites, direct impacts are not expected. At SC-3 in Arana Gulch, a small wetland area (PW-1) is present in a concrete channel, 25 to 50 feet upstream of the culvert under Soquel Avenue. Neary Lagoon, Schwan Lagoon, and Corcoran Lagoon, as well as all streams and unnamed tributaries that are crossed by the pipeline are considered navigable waters of the United States; therefore, they are “jurisdictional” waters regulated by the USACE under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-64 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). These waters are also regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and by the CCC as Waters of the State and wetlands. Additional potentially jurisdictional waters include coastal brackish marsh, present at the edges of the San Lorenzo River downstream of Riverside Avenue Bridge (SC-1), and a riparian corridor (RC-1) present northeast of SC-3, on the opposite side of Soquel Avenue from the proposed pipeline alignment (a distance of about 70 feet; see Figure 4.4-2a). All of these wetland sites are far enough from the pipeline alignment that direct impacts would not be expected. The District anticipates that pipelines crossing stream culverts and bridges would be accomplished by hanging pipelines from bridges or by placing the pipeline between the road and the top of the culvert. These methods would avoid significant impacts to waterways. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 provides safety precautions for horizontal directional drilling operations. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to federally protected wetlands from Project operations and no mitigation is required. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.4-4: Project construction would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (Less than Significant) Terrestrial and Freshwater Environment The majority of the Project area is located within or adjacent to developed areas, which do not serve as wildlife movement corridors for terrestrial animals. Although some wildlife moves through these roadways and trails, they would likely travel in undisturbed areas located adjacent to these features and outside of the Project area. Terrestrial wildlife habitat in the Project area is limited primarily to riparian corridors and open space in the Twin Lakes area. Although some terrestrial wildlife may be deterred from movement through the Project site during construction, all work would largely occur in areas that are subject to current development or disturbance. Streams potentially provide movement corridors for aquatic wildlife, such as fish and amphibians, and their movement in these areas would not be impaired during or following construction. The majority of the construction disturbance involves temporary impacts related to pipeline installation in developed or disturbed areas, which would not substantially impede wildlife movement in undisturbed wildlife corridors. Pipeline crossings at streams would be implemented above the water or by using trenchless methods, negating the need to the conduct in-water work which could impact movement of aquatic wildlife. The Project does not include the permanent placement of structures within creeks, rivers, or other waterways and would not substantially impede the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife corridors, which could impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Implementation of the Project would, therefore, result in a less-than-significant impact relative to movement of fish or wildlife along a migratory corridor. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-65 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Project construction impacts on the use of native wildlife nursery sites applies to nesting birds. Potential Project-related impacts on nesting birds are addressed in Impact 4.4-1. As discussed in that impact, potentially significant impacts on nesting birds would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4-1a. Marine Environment The central California coastline, and Monterey Bay in particular, falls within a migratory corridor for multiple species of special-status fish and marine mammals. This includes migratory pathways for multiple salmonid runs, green sturgeon, grey whales, and a handful of additional marine mammal species. Construction Impacts As discussed above, the Project would not involve any construction within the marine environment, and construction-phase discharges would comply with applicable NPDES permit requirements. Therefore, there would not be any conflicts with migratory pathways for marine species would result from Project implementation. Operational Impacts The location of the SC WWTF outfall pipeline discharge point, approximately 110 feet below the ocean surface, makes the occurrence of migrating special-status marine species in the vicinity of the outfall unlikely. Additionally, changes in the composition of water quality constituents contained in treated effluent discharged under Project operations are not expected to rise to levels that could be harmful to biological resources. Therefore, impacts on the migratory pathways for marine species from Project operations would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. ___________________ Impact 4.4-5: Project construction could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than significant with Mitigation) The relevant policies and ordinances protecting biological resources in the Project area are numerous since the Project occurs across multiple jurisdictions. The relevant policies are summarized in Table 4.4-3, and primarily focus on protection of environmentally sensitive habitats and biological resources, including protected wildlife and plant species, wetlands, streams and riparian corridors. As discussed under Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, above, the Project could result in potentially significant impacts to biological resources, which could conflict with applicable local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. However, with implementation of the Mitigation Measures described under Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2 and 4.4-3, which are consistent with these local policies, impacts associated with construction of the Project would be reduced to less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-66 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources In addition, the County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Capitola have tree protection ordinances, also summarized in Section 4.4-3. Construction workers would clear and prepare the construction work areas; however, site clearing and grubbing is expected to be limited. Clearing and grubbing would occur at the Chanticleer Site or the Headquarters-West Annex Site, along some pipeline corridors, and at the recharge and monitoring well sites on an as-needed basis. Some trees could be removed within the staging and construction areas at either the HeadquartersWest Annex Site, or Chanticleer Site. Tree removal could include trees that line the northern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site, or trees at the southwest corner of the Chanticleer Site. Tree removal at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well, the Cabrillo College Recharge Well, the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well and the SC WWTF is not expected. However, tree removal at the Twin Lakes Recharge Well site could be required. The five possible treatment configurations are summarized in Table 4.4-6 with possible trees that could be removed. Tree removal and trimming associated with clearing and grubbing, or otherwise preparing sites for construction, could adversely affect trees protected by local ordinances, and this would constitute a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.4-5, would ensure consistency with local tree ordinances and reduce this impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure Measure 4.4-5: Comply with Local Tree Ordinances The District shall comply with all applicable local tree protection ordinances, including by obtaining any necessary tree trimming or removal permits, replanting trees in accordance with the required tree replacement ratios, and monitoring and maintaining the replacement plantings in according with applicable requirements. For tree removal requiring a tree removal permit, the following re-planting policies shall be followed: The City of Capitola requires tree replacement at a ratio of at least 2:1 on the subject property, or if all other locations on site are found infeasible, payment of in-lieu fees to compensate for the planting and maintenance of trees by the City. Planting of replacement follows the procedures outlined in City of Capitola Municipal Code 12.12.190 (Tree replacement). Replacement trees and/or in-lieu fees are not required if post-removal tree canopy coverage on the site or parcel will be 30 percent or more. Tree removal within the City of Santa Cruz requires tree mitigation in the form of replanting or payment of an in-lieu fee per tree. Replanting requires three 15-gallon or one 24-inch size specimen or payment of the current value, which is determined by the City. For trees removed within the jurisdiction of County of Santa Cruz, the County requires planting a tree of suitable species in the immediate vicinity of the removed tree or at a location deemed more suitable as determined by the Department of Public Works. Trees under 12 inches in diameter, measured one foot from the base, shall be replaced with trees of one-gallon size. Those over 12 inches in diameter shall be replaced with five-gallon trees. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-67 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources TABLE 4.4-6 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL TREE REMOVAL Alternative Treatment Configuration 1 AWPF (includes Possible removal of Brine PS and tree cluster on SW Purified Water PS) corner of the site. Estimate the following: 3 Douglas fir 2 oak 1 unknown No tree removal anticipated Treatment Configuration 2 Treatment Configuration 3 Possible removal of tree line on northern half of site. Estimate the following: 4 Douglas fir Possible removal of tree cluster on SW corner of the site. Estimate the following: Possible removal of No tree removal anticipated tree line on northern half of site. Estimate the following: 16 oak 3 Douglas fir 4 Douglas fir 19 sycamore/ aspen/ cottonwood 2 oak 16 oak 1 unknown 2 unknown No tree removal anticipated 19 sycamore/ aspen/ cottonwood No tree removal anticipated Treatment Configuration 4 Treatment Configuration 5 2 unknown No tree removal anticipated Monterey Recharge Well No tree removal anticipated Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Treatment Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Willowbrook Recharge Well Trees in middle of proposed lot. Estimate the following: Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Treatment Configuration 1 Configuration 1 2 unknown species Cabrillo College Recharge Well Possible removal of Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as trees Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Treatment Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Twin Lakes Church Possible removal of Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as Treatment Same as trees Configuration 1 Configuration 1 Treatment Recharge Well Configuration 1 Configuration 1 _________________________ 4.4.5 References – Biological Resources Alley, D. W., 2004. 2004 Soquel Creek Lagoon Management and Enhancement Plan Update. Prepared for City of Capitola, June 2004. Alley, D. W., 2016. 2016 Summary Report: Juvenile Steelhead Densities in the San Lorenzo, Soquel, Aptos and Corralitos Watersheds, Santa Cruz County, CA. Prepared for the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Department, June 2016. Armstrong-Howard M.D., W.P. Cochlan, R.M. Kudela, N. Ladizinsky, R.M. Kudela, 2006. Nitrogenous preference of toxigenic Pseudo-nitzschia australis (Bacillariophyceae) from field and laboratory experiments. Harmful Algae 6, 206-217. Arnold, R. A. and K. Lyons, Habitat Conservation Plan for Ohlone Tiger Beetle, the Santa Cruz Tarplant, and the Gairdner’s Yampah, Santa Cruz Gardens Unit 12 Project Site, Soquel, California. Prepared for Porter-Livingstson Development, Inc. and O’Hara-Balfour LP, July 9, 2008. Arnold, R.A., President, Entomological Consulting Services, Ltd., email communication, January 26, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-68 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Berry, Chris, Watershed Compliance Manager and Project Manager for Habitat Conservation Plan, City of Santa Cruz, telephone conversation, January 8, 2018. Bilotta, G. S. and R. E. Brazier, 2008. Understanding the influence of suspended solids on water quality and aquatic biota. Published in Water Research 42: 2849-2861. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2010. Hierarchical List of Natural Communities with Holland Types. Available at nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398& inline. September 2010. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2002. Nearshore Fishery Management Plan. Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2005. Final Market Squid Fishery Management Plan. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Marine Region. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2009. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game. November 24, 2009. California Department for Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2017. Special Animals List. October 2017. Periodic Publication, 65 pp. Available at www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/list.html. Accessed on January 3, 2018. California Department for Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2018, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) printout for USGS 7.5-Minute topographic quadrangles: Santa Cruz, Soquel, Davenport, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, Watsonville West, Moss Landing. Accessed on January 3, 2018. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2018a, Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Data request for U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles: Santa Cruz, Soquel, Davenport, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, Watsonville West, Moss Landing. Accessed on January 2, 2018. California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Santa Cruz Chapter, 2018b. Plant Communities of Santa Cruz County: Coastal Terrace Prairie. Available at www.cruzcnps.org/CoastalTerrace Prairie.html. Accessed on January 16, 2018. City of Capitola, 2014. Capitola General Plan, Available at www.cityofcapitola.org/ communitydevelopment/page/capitola-general-plan. Accessed on March 27, 2018. City of Capitola, 2017. Municipal code Chapter 12.12: Community Tree and Forest Management. Adopted December 14, 2017, Available at www.codepublishing.com/CA/Capitola/html/ Capitola12/Capitola1212.html. Accessed on January 9, 2018. City of Santa Cruz, 2011. Draft Habitat Conservation Plan: Conservation Strategy for Steelhead and Coho Salmon. August 10, 2011. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-69 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources City of Santa Cruz, 2012. City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030, Available at www.cityofsantacruz.com/government/city-departments/planning-and-communitydevelopment/services/advance-planning/general-plan. Accessed on March 27, 2018. City of Santa Cruz, 2018. Preservation of Heritage Trees and Heritage Shrubs, Chapter 9.56 of the Municipal Code, Available at www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruz/html/ SantaCruz09/SantaCruz0956.html#9.56. Accessed on March 27, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 1994. Santa Cruz County 1994 General Plan and Local Coastal Program, Available at www.sccoplanning.com/PlanningHome/SustainabilityPlanning/ GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed on March 27, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 1990. Soquel Village Plan, Available at www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/ County/Planning/policy/soquel_redo.pdf?ver=2007-09-08-010000-000. Accessed on March 27, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2017a. Significant Trees Protection, Chapter 16.34 of the Municipal Code, Available at www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/SantaCruzCounty16/ SantaCruzCounty1634.html. Accessed on March 27, 2018. County of Santa Cruz Code, 2017b. Municipal code Chapter 16.30: Riparian Corridor and Wetlands Protection, Available at www.codepublishing.com/CA/SantaCruzCounty/html/ SantaCruzCounty16/SantaCruzCounty1630.html. Accessed on January 8, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2010. Aptos Village Plan, Available at www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/ County/Planning/policy/AVP%20Current.pdf. Accessed on March 27, 2018. Croll, D.A., B. Marinovic, S. Benson, F.P. Chavez, N. Black, R. Ternullo, B.R Tershy, 2005. From wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system. Marine Ecology Progress Series 289:117-130. Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2018. Wetland Assessment for the Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Project, prepared by ESA for Soquel Creek Water District, January 16, 2018. Healey, M.C., 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In: Groot, C., Margolis, L. (Eds.), Pacific Salmon Life Histories. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC, pp. 311e391. Holland, R. F., 1986, Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California, California Department of Fish and Game. Kittleson, G. and B. Mori, 2015. Lower San Lorenzo River 2015 Fall Migration Bird Surveys, prepared for Santa Cruz City Council, January 11, 2016. Kobernus, L. P., 1998. Assessment of Steelhead Presence and Habitat in San Lorenzo Creek Watershed. Master’s thesis, California State University, Hayward, December 1998. Kudela, R., Pitcher, G., Probyn, T., Figueiras F., Moita, T., and V. Trainer, 2005. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Upwelling Systems. Oceanography, 18, 2:184–197. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-70 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Kudela, R. M., J. P. Ryan, M. D. Blakely, J. Q. Lane, and T. D. Peterson, 2008. Linking the physiology and ecology of Cochlodinium to better understand harmful algal bloom events: A comparative approach, Harmful Algae, 7, 278– 292. Mayer, K. E. and Laudenslayer W. F. Jr. ed., 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018a. Marine Mammals. II. Pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), Available at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/mamm2.html. Accessed on February 13, 2016. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018b. Marine Mammals. III. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), Available at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/ mamm3.html#3a. Accessed on February 13, 2018. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018c. Resource Issue: Introduced Species, Available at https:/montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/resmanissues/invasive.html. Accessed on February 13, 2018. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018d. Sanctuary Ecologically Significant Areas, Available at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/research/techreports/trmbnms2016.html. Accessed on February 13, 2018. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2018e. MBNMS Management Plan Documents, Available at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/intro/mp/mp.html. Monterey County Resource Management Agency (MCRMA) Revised Working Draft, 2017. Moss Landing Community Plan; Revised Draft. August 2017. Morey, S., 2000a. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Rana boylii. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Morey, S., 2000b. Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata, California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Murphy, D. W., State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1992. Twin Lakes State Beach General Plan. March 1992. Myers, J. M., R. G. Kope, G. J. Bryant, D. Teel, L. J. Lierheimer, T. C. Wainwright, W. S. Grant, F. W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S. T. Lindley, and R. S. Waples, 1998. Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. Report # NMFS-NWFSC-35, NOAA Tech. Memo. U.S. Dept. Commerce. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2006. Endangered and Threatened Species; Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Populations Segments of West Coast Steelhead; Final Rule. Federal Register 71 (3): 834-862, January 5, 2006. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2014. Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena): San Francisco-Russian River Stock Assessment, June 4, 2014. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-71 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2015. Northern Elephant Seal (Mirounga angustiriostris): California Breeding Stock Assessment, July 31, 2015. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (2018). Marine Mammals. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/. Accessed on February 13, 2018. Pennington, J.T. and Chavez, F.P., 2000. Seasonal fluctuations of temperature, salinity, nitrate, chlorophyll and primary production at station H3/M1 over 1989-1996 in Monterey Bay, California. Deep-Sea Research II 47, 947-973. Shahraki, J., Motallebi, A., and J. Pourahmad, 2013. Oxidative mechanisms of fish hepatocyte toxicity by the harmful dinoflagellate Cochlodinium polykrikoides. Marine Environmental Research, Jun-Jul:87-88:52-60. Stebbins, R. C. and S. M. McGinnis, 2012. A Field Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles of California, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. State of California, 2003. California Government Code, Title 5. Local Agencies [50001 – 57550], Article 5. Regulation of Local Agencies by Counties and Cities [53090 – 53097.5], 53091(d). Amended by Stats. Ch. 267, Sec. 1. Effective January 1, 2003. Accessed on January 8, 2018. State Water Resources Control Board, 2017. State Water Quality Protection Areas – Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). Last updated 10/9/2017. Available at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs.shtml. Accessed on January 9, 2018. Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology, 2002. Lower San Lorenzo River & Lagoon Management Plan. Prepared for City of Santa Cruz Redevelopment Agency. January 14, 2002. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA)/Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2014. Environmental Assessment for the California American Water Slant Test Well Project. June 2014. Tuttle, M., 1991. “How North America bats are at their most vulnerable during hibernation and migration,” BATS Magazine, Volume 9, No. 3. Fall 1991, Available at http://www.batcon.org/resources/media-education/bats-magazine/bat_article/492. Accessed on January 5, 2018. U.C. Davis, 2018. U.C. Davis SoilWeb online soil mapping application. Available at https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/. Accessed on January 26, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018a. Official List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Santa Cruz, Soquel, Davenport, Felton, Laurel, Loma Prieta, Watsonville West, Moss Landing USGS 7.5 Minute Quads. Accessed January 2, 2018. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2018b. ECOS Environmental Conservation Online System Critical Habitat Mapper. Available at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/criticalhabitat.html. Last updated: September 12, 2017. Accessed on January 5, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-72 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.4 Biological Resources Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, 2004. Methods for conducting Monarch Surveys. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/monarch_survey_ instructions.pdf. Accessed on January 17, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.4-73 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Project to result in adverse impacts to cultural resources. Cultural resources include architectural resources, archaeological resources, and human remains. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Cultural Resources generally concern requests that the archaeological importance of the area be considered and that the Project require Native American observers and qualified archaeologists on site during earth disturbance, that any work within State right-of-way would require an encroachment permit and related cultural resources studies, and a recommendation that an archaeological inventory survey, including background research and communication with Native American tribes be done. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.5.2 Environmental Setting Definitions Cultural resource is a term used to describe both archaeological sites (prehistoric and historic) depicting evidence of past human use of the landscape through material culture and the built environment. Historic-era architectural resources include buildings, structures, objects, and historic districts. Historic-era architectural resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) are considered “historic properties.” Historic-era architectural resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) are considered “historical resources.” Archaeological resources consist of prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include: obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (“midden”) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, handstones, milling slabs). Historic-era archaeological materials (not associated with military installations or activities) might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. Similar to historic-era architectural resources, archaeological resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the National Register are considered “historic properties.” Archaeological resources that are listed in or are eligible for listing in the California Register are considered “historical resources.” In addition, archaeological resources can be considered “unique archaeological resources” under CEQA. Project Area of Potential Effects The Project area or Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the Project is defined as “the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR Section 800.16[b]). The Project area is the area of proposed Project components including installation of pipelines, new construction, and upgrades at the existing wastewater treatment facility. Project area and APE are used interchangeably in this section. Archaeological Area of Potential Effects The archaeological or direct APE is the area of direct impact. The archaeological APE represents all areas where construction-related ground disturbance could occur, including open excavations, construction work areas, and staging areas. The width of the archaeological APE for pipelines proposed within existing roadways is equal to the width of the road right-of-way (typically 30 to 100 feet from curb to curb) because it is not currently known where within the right-of-way the pipelines will be located. The archaeological APE for pipelines proposed on off-road locations is 50 feet from centerline of the pipeline to accommodate work areas. Pipeline trenches would generally be no more than 9 feet wide. For all pipelines, the length of the archaeological APE is equal to the length of the proposed pipeline. Pipeline depths would average 8-9 feet below the ground surface, with deeper excavations (up to 15 feet below ground surface) required where pipelines would be installed via trenchless technologies (i.e., jack and bore, horizontal directional drilling, etc.). The horizontal archaeological APE for nonlinear facilities is the anticipated footprint and construction-related disturbance associated with each facility. The maximum construction area at the Headquarters-West Annex Site would be approximately 2.2 acres. The maximum construction area at the Chanticleer Site would be approximately 1.5 acres. Depth of ground disturbance for the facilities at these sites would not exceed 2 feet below ground surface. The area of ground disturbance at the SC WWTF would be 1.5 acre. Because of the anticipated softness of the soil underneath the SC WWTF, piles would be driven to a depth of approximately 70 feet below ground surface. The construction area for the recharge wells, monitoring wells, and associated pump stations would be approximately 0.36 acres for the total facilities (roughly 0.12 acres for each facility). Depth of ground disturbance for most facility components would be approximately 2 feet; however, the recharge wells could extend to depths of approximately 900 feet below the ground surface. In addition to construction areas described above, the APE includes the proposed construction staging areas for the Project (Chapter 3, Project Description, Table 3-5). Architectural Area of Potential Effects The architectural APE encompasses the direct APE as well as the area of indirect impact, which for historic architectural resources includes the viewshed or setting visible from a Project component as well as the area subject to construction-related vibration. The horizontal extent of the architectural APE is inclusive of any areas that could be subject to significant vibration effects from construction equipment. For aboveground components, the viewshed and/or setting visible from a Project component is included in the architectural APE. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Natural and Cultural History This section summarizes the natural and cultural history of the northern Monterey Bay area. Because archaeological regions can represent large geographic areas and display some cultural homogeneity, a discussion of the environmental, prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic contexts is useful in order to evaluate the Project impacts to cultural resources. Natural Environment The Monterey Bay area is home to a vast array of floral and faunal species that would have been utilized by both prehistoric and early historic-era populations. Mayer and Laudenslayer (1988) describe the two dominant habitats in the Monterey Bay area as coastal oak woodland and coniferous montane hardwood. Native to coastal oak woodland is the coast live oak tree. During the Mission Period (1769–1834), early settlers in the area affected the integrity of this habitat through the introduction of agriculture and animal husbandry; in addition, the importation of aggressive annual species hindered the development of young oaks. As a result, portions of the woodland have become open woodlands or savannas. Over 60 species of mammals and over 110 species of birds—including California quail, deer, and squirrel—live in the coastal oak woodland habitat. A variety of tree species are found in coniferous montane hardwood habitat, including coast live oak, big-leaf maple, Pacific madrone, tan oak, canyon live oak, Coulter pine, and coastal redwood. The region contains an abundance of natural resources, which would have been taken advantage of by its prehistoric and early historic-era population. Deer, elk, and waterfowl were plentiful, as were marine and Bay resources such as seals, otters, abalone, mussels, oysters, clams and numerous fish species. Franciscan chert was an easily obtainable local raw material for stone tools. Obsidian could be obtained or traded from the Anadel and Napa Glass Mountain quarries north of the San Francisco Bay (Moratto, 1984). Geological Context The California coast has undergone dramatic landscape changes since humans began to inhabit the region more than 10,000 years ago. Rising sea levels and increased sedimentation into streams and rivers are among the changes (Helley et al., 1979). In many places, the interface between older land surfaces and Holocene-age landforms are marked by a well-developed buried soil profile (or “paleosol”). Paleosols preserve the composition and character of the earth’s surface prior to subsequent sediment deposition; thus, paleosols have the potential to preserve archaeological resources if the area was occupied or settled by humans (Meyer and Rosenthal, 2007). Because human populations have grown since the arrival of the area’s first inhabitants, younger paleosols (late Holocene) are more likely to yield archaeological resources than older paleosols (early Holocene or Pleistocene). The APE is primarily within Pleistocene-age coastal terrace deposits, which has a very low potential for buried paleosols to contain archaeological resources because this formation was present prior to the arrival of humans to the area. The APE also intersects bands of the Santa Cruz Purisima Formation, which was formed in the upper Miocene to upper Pliocene and do not have buried site potential. There are areas where the APE extends through Holocene-age alluvial deposits, which has a moderate to high potential for paleosols that could contain archaeological Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources materials and features. The potential for buried archaeological resources can further be determined based on additional characteristics: • Archaeological sites tend to be located near perennial water sources; • Archaeological deposits from successive time periods are more common because the density of human populations increased over time; and • The longer a landform remained at the surface, the greater the probability that any one spot on that landform was occupied. Based on the above-described geoarchaeological assessment, there is moderate potential for deeply buried, well-developed soil horizons to be present in the archaeological APE. Those locations include the pipeline alignments extending east from the SC WWTF through the San Lorenzo River floodplain and pipeline alignments extended west from the Headquarters-West Annex Site through the Soquel River floodplain. Cultural History Prehistoric Context Archaeologists have developed individual cultural chronological sequences tailored to the archaeology and material culture of each subregion of California. Each of these sequences is based principally on the presence of distinctive cultural traits and stratigraphic separation of deposits. Jones et al. (2007) provide a framework for the interpretation of the Central Coast and the Monterey Bay Area. The authors divide human history on the Central Coast into six broad periods: the Paleo-Indian Period (pre-8000 B.C.), the Early Archaic Period (8000 to 3500 B.C.), the Early Period (3500 to 600 B.C.), the Middle Period (600 B.C. to A.D. 1000), the Middle/Late Transition Period (1000 to 1250 A.D.), and the Late Period (A.D. 1250–1769). The periods have been largely defined on the basis of distinctive bead types; typological analysis and radiocarbon dating of Olivella beads show the bead sequence in the Monterey Bay Area as generally similar to those of the California Central Valley and the Santa Barbara coast. Economic patterns, stylistic aspects, and regional phases further subdivide cultural periods into shorter phases. This scheme uses economic and technological types, socio-politics, trade networks, population density, and variations of artifact types to differentiate between cultural periods. Ethnographic Setting Based on a compilation of ethnographic, historic, and archaeological data, Milliken et al. (2009) describes a group known as the Ohlone, who once occupied the general vicinity of the Project area. While traditional anthropological literature portrayed the Ohlone peoples as having a static culture, today it is better understood that many variations of culture and ideology existed within and between villages. While these descriptions of separations between native cultures of California make it an easier task for ethnographers to describe past behaviors, this masks Native adaptability and self-identity. California’s Native Americans never saw themselves as members of larger cultural groups, as described by anthropologists. Instead, they saw themselves as members of specific villages, perhaps related to others by marriage or kinship ties, but viewing the village as the primary identifier of their origins. The Project is in the greater Awaswasspeaking tribal area; their territory extended from Davenport in the north to Aptos in the south, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources and included the present-day city of Santa Cruz and the unincorporated communities of Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos. Ethnographic villages included Aptos village site of Sokel in Aptos and the Uypi village site of Chatu-mu in Santa Cruz (Milliken et al., 2009). Economically, Ohlone engaged in hunting and gathering. Their territory encompassed both coastal and open valley environments that contained a wide variety of resources, including grass seeds, acorns, bulbs and tubers, bear, deer, elk, antelope, a variety of bird species, and rabbit and other small mammals. The Ohlone acknowledged private ownership of goods and songs, and village ownership of rights to land and/or natural resources; they appear to have aggressively protected their village territories, requiring monetary payment for access rights in the form of clamshell beads, and even shooting trespassers if caught. After European contact, Ohlone society was severely disrupted by missionization, disease, and displacement. Today, the Ohlone, while not federally recognized, still have a strong presence in the Santa Cruz and Monterey Bay Area, and are highly interested in their historic and prehistoric past. Historic Background Spanish and Mexican Period Spanish incursions into the general area began in the early seventeenth century when the Sebastian Vizcaino expedition arrived at Monterey in 1602. It was not until over a century later that the Spanish government began to take an active interest in colonizing what was then known as Alta California. Between 1769 and 1823, Spanish Franciscan priests established 21 missions along the California coast from San Diego to Sonoma. Mission Santa Cruz, founded in 1791, baptized many Ohlone and later Yokuts neophytes. The 1,759 Native Americans baptized at the mission between 1791 and 1840 represented three language groups, Awaswas (1,154 people), Delta and Northern Valley Yokuts (539 people), and Sierra Miwok (38 people). They and their descendants came to be known as the Cruzeños. Originally built on the San Lorenzo River floodplain near the north shore of Monterey Bay, the mission was moved to higher ground following flooding the first year. The mission was the target of at least two documented episodes of violent Native American resistance, with an uprising and partial burning of the mission in 1793 in response to forced relocation of Ohlone populations, and the killing in 1812 of Father Andrés Quintana, reportedly over the use of a metal-tipped whip to punish mission laborers (Milliken, 1995). In 1818, the mission was temporarily evacuated and left in the care of local Spanish settlers in advance of a suspected attack by Argentinean pirates; however, the pirates never landed near Santa Cruz. Instead, the settlers entrusted with protecting the mission looted the church and other mission buildings of valuables (Hoover et al., 2002). Early American Period Spanish control of California ended with Mexican independence in 1821. In 1834, the Mexican government secularized the Spanish missions, selling the land and buildings. In Santa Cruz County, 21 land grants were made to Mexican settlers. Most grantees used their land to establish ranches with enormous free-ranging herds of horses and Spanish cattle, which powered the Californio economy. Cattle hides and tallow were the medium of exchange in business transactions among the Californios and with many trading ships that came from the American east coast. The Project area is located within several land grants including Rancho Potrero y Rincon de San Pedro Regalado (in the immediate vicinity of the former Mission Santa Cruz), Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Rancho Arroyo del Rodeo (between Rodeo Creek Gulch and Soquel Creek), and Rancho Shoquel (including present-day Soquel and Capitola) (Hoover et al., 2002). The 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo brought Alta California under control of the United States. News of the Gold Rush that same year sparked a huge migration into California. Due to the rapid influx of settlers into the area, legal determinations of ownership of lands awarded by Spanish or Mexican authorities were often disputed. The new American government passed the Land Act of 1851, which placed the burden of proof-of-ownership to the grantees so that the few Native Americans who had received grants lost their title, as did many of the Hispanic owners. By congressional action, a board of Land Commissioners heard grant claims; their decision was then appealed in Federal Courts. Santa Cruz and Vicinity This summary of the history of Santa Cruz and the surrounding region has been adapted from a cultural resources study completed for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update (LSA, 2006). Commercial development of Santa Cruz and the surrounding region’s natural resources was well under way by the time California became part of the United States with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Redwood logging began in 1841, when Joseph L. Major built a sawmill at Mount Hermon north of present-day Santa Cruz. By 1864, 28 sawmills had been established in Santa Cruz County. Logging continued in Santa Cruz County during the latter half of the 19th century, supplying builders in San Francisco, as well as the local lime and tannery industries. By the turn of the century, much of the useable timber had been logged, generating conservation efforts to save the remaining stands, including Big Basin Redwoods in 1902. Lime quarrying was also an important industry in early Santa Cruz, which, like logging, developed in response to the growing demand for building materials during the post-gold rush construction boom in San Francisco. Two engineers from Massachusetts, A. P. Jordan and Isaac E. Davis, built the first lime kiln in 1853 at the corner of High and Bay streets and established a quarry along the San Lorenzo River between Santa Cruz and Felton. The quarry was eventually sold to Henry Cowell, whose lime operation, along with the Santa Cruz lime operations constituted half of the State’s lime production in the 1880s. By the 1890s, Santa Cruz’s lime industry began to decline due to the depletion of cheap fuel brought about by extensive logging of the region and the development of cement, which used a cheaper, less pure grade of limestone. Tanneries were also important to the area’s early economy. By 1857, at least four tanneries were established in and near Santa Cruz: Kirby and Jones on Mission Hill, Porter Brothers in Soquel, C. Brown and Company on Laurel Street, and the Grove Tannery on River Street. The tanneries produced skirting, harness, belting, bridle, and sole leather. One of the largest tanneries was owned by A. C. Kron, who had purchased an operating interest in the Grove Tannery in 1867. By 1890, Kron had over 30 employees, a commission house on Clay Street in San Francisco, and a branch in Sydney, Australia. As with the lime industry, however, the local tanneries’ overharvesting of local timber for barrel staves and fuel resulted in the industry’s demise by the turn of the century. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Although the origin of the name “Soquel” is unknown, it was likely inspired by the language of the native people. The town of Soquel was founded in 1852 along Soquel Creek (which was known to regularly flood the town), and by 1860 the local logging industry had become the third largest in the nation. Paper and flour mills were also constructed along the creek. The Santa CruzWatsonville Railroad reached Soquel in 1876, two years after the Camp Capitola beach resort opened. Soquel’s population grew from 328 residents in 1880 to around 3,000 in 1890. These burgeoning industries also spawned the area’s residential growth and infrastructure development during the 19th century. A water system was built in 1860, facilitating more residential and industrial growth. In the 1870s, the population grew by 50 percent, and housing and development expanded to the east side of the San Lorenzo River, the West Cliff area, Ocean View, and Riverside Avenue. Also during this time, Pacific Street emerged as the business center for Santa Cruz and fostered the City’s first Chinatown. In the 1890s, the street railroad was electrified and expanded with houses built along lines that stretched from downtown to Soquel and the Seabright area. The Santa Cruz area’s economic focus gradually shifted to tourism nearing the turn of the century. The growth of local tourism was largely a result of railroad access to Santa Cruz County beginning in the late 1870s. Prior to this time, goods were transported and people accessed the area via ship or on narrow, rutted roads. In the early 20th century, popular beach attractions were built, including the Scenic Railway roller coaster in 1908 and the Giant Dipper Roller Coaster in 1924. World War II had a significant effect on the local economy. Tourism declined due to travel restrictions and gasoline shortages. The area’s fishing economy, which was dominated by Italian immigrants, suffered as the result of Executive Order 9066, which established internment and relocation camps for Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants, including those who were United States citizens. Many Italian families were relocated inland away from the waterfront and many of the fishing boats were abandoned or used in the war effort. The commercial fishing industry never recovered after the war, although sport fishing remains a popular activity. The local tourist economy revived, with the boardwalk undergoing major renovations in the 1950s and again in 1981. The boardwalk, which remains the focus of Santa Cruz’s tourist industry, continues to operate with a mix of historic and modern amusement park attractions. Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility This section has been partially adapted from the 1973 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Treatment Facility Expansion and Interceptor Construction in the City of Santa Cruz. Construction of sanitary sewers in Santa Cruz began in the 1880s when the population was about 4,000. By 1917, about three quarters of the city was sewered by a gravity system emptying into the San Lorenzo River and Monterey Bay. Because of the attractive bathing beaches in the area, this disposal method was unsatisfactory and in 1925, a comprehensive study was made of sewage collection and disposal. By 1928, essential parts of a waste water system with a treatment plant located at Neary Lagoon were completed. In 1963, [engineering firm Brown and Caldwell] was hired to survey the whole drainage area. While the survey was underway, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) noted that the City’s treatment plant was not meeting existing Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources requirements and prepared an “Order to Cease and Desist.” A three-stage construction was envisioned with the first stage to consist of a larger treatment plant with trunk sewers and tunnel outfall. This system was to meet the RWQCB’s requirements. In addition to contracts, 30 additional acres in Neary Lagoon and 56 easements for the trunk sewers and outfall were acquired. This was accomplished in 1966 (EPA, 1973). The 1928 Sanborn map shows that a “city sewer pumping station” existed in the approximate location of the modern-day Neary Lagoon Public Tennis Courts. The sewer plant included a 1½-story-over-basement wood-frame pumping station building with a circular sewer well, sewer pumps, boilers, and an incinerator. The 1928–1950 Sanborn map shows that the sewer plant had been demolished and a new “City of Santa Cruz Sewer Pumping Plant” had been constructed in the location of the modern-day water treatment facility near the intersection of Bay and Liberty streets. Constructed in 1948, the plant was composed of two circular reinforced concrete tanks with a one-story control house connecting the tanks (Digesters 2 and 3, extant), a pre-existing pump house with a Greek-cross plan (shown as the chlorination station in a 1988 drawing and demolished sometime after that year), a circular vacuator (non-potable water tank, extant), and a one-story brick auto garage (demolished circa 1952). The plant underwent a “primary upgrade” in 1965. Several new buildings are visible in a 1968 aerial photo, and these were located to the north and west of the 1948 plant. These include the pump house, the administration building (process control), and the southern portion of the primary sedimentation tanks (all extant). In 1985, the current outfall was completed. A 1993 aerial photo reveals that more buildings had been constructed since 1968. These include the primary digestion tanks, the solids dewatering building, the bar screen room, the grit removal tank, the UV filtration building, and the northern portion of the primary sedimentation tanks (all extant). The facility underwent an advanced primary upgrade in 1988 and a full secondary upgrade in 1998. Identification Efforts The effort to identify previously recorded cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE consisted of archival research, contacting Native American tribes, and a surface survey of the APE. Records Search Methods ESA conducted a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on December 12, 2016 (File No. 16-0889). The purpose of the records search was to: (1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within the APE; (2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby resources; and (3) develop a context for the identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. The records search consisted of an examination of the following documents: • NWIC base maps (USGS Santa Cruz and Soquel, California 7.5-minute topographic maps) to identify recorded archaeological sites and studies within a 1/2-mile radius of the Project. • NWIC base maps (USGS Santa Cruz and Soquel, California 7.5-minute topographic maps) to identify recorded architectural resources and studies conducted within or adjacent to the Project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources • Resource Inventories: California Department of Parks and Recreation (1976), California Inventory of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento; California Office of Historic Preservation (2012), Historic Properties Directory Listing for Santa Cruz County (through April 2012); California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Historic Bridge Inventory, District 4, Santa Cruz County, Updated 2010; Santa Cruz County GIS/Assessor’s Data (http://www.co.santa-cruz.ca.us). • Historical Maps: An extensive online historical map collection with approximately 50 maps and views of the Monterey Bay area is available online at http://davidrumsey.com; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; historic aerial imagery available online at http://historicaerials.com. Native American Consultation Efforts ESA submitted a sacred lands search request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 18, 2016. ESA received a response on October 20, 2016. A records search of the NAHC sacred land file did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the vicinity of the APE. The NAHC provided a list of six Native American individuals and organization that might have additional information or concerns. ESA contacted each person on the list by letter on October 26, 2016. The letter provided contact information for the Soquel Creek Water District for additional communication regarding the Project. Records Search Results Forty-three (43) cultural resources studies on file at the NWIC have been completed within or immediately adjacent to the APE. These studies consist of surface surveys, background research, architectural analysis, archaeological site boundary definition and evaluations, and finding of effect documents. The Previously Recorded Archaeological Resources section below further discusses studies relevant to specific cultural resources. The results of the records search indicate that a total of 34 archaeological sites have been previously recorded in the ½ mile records search radius around the APE, including four (4) historic-era archaeological resources, twenty (20) prehistoric archaeological resources, and ten (10) multicomponent sites that contain both historic-era and prehistoric elements. There are no previously recorded architectural resources in the APE on file at the NWIC. Eight (8) prehistoric archaeological resources are within or immediately adjacent to the APE. Identification Results Survey Methods On December 28–30 2016, an ESA archaeologist, accompanied by a field technician, conducted an archaeological surface survey of the APE. The survey consisted of a mixed strategy of pedestrian survey and cursory survey methods. The pedestrian survey consisted of intensively walking the APE in narrow (5–10 meter wide) transects. The cursory survey consisted of a “windshield” survey in paved and built-upon areas combined with pedestrian survey in areas with limited exposed ground surface. The intensity of the survey was determined by environmental conditions (i.e., paved, unpaved, disturbed, vegetation limitations) and predicted archaeological sensitivity of an area based on several factors including the results of previous surveys, mapped locations of previously recorded sites, proximity to waterways and other geographic features, as well as mapped geologic units. Prior to fieldwork, aerial, topographic, and geologic maps of the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources APE were examined to determine those areas that would require more intensive pedestrian survey. Most of the pipeline alignments would be installed within paved road rights-of-way or other builtupon facilities. Urban, paved areas with concrete gutters and sidewalks exhibiting no ground surface exposure were driven. Unpaved shoulders, pull-outs, drainages, cut banks, and landscaped areas were surveyed on-foot. Survey at these locations focused on the inspection of cut banks and other exposures to identify, to the extent possible, the potential for subsurface archaeological components. Off road, unpaved segments of the APE were subjected to an intensive pedestrian survey that consisted of walking the APE corridor in zigzag transects. Unpaved areas were surveyed in 5–10-meter wide transects. Areas of dense vegetation were periodically scraped every 10 meters to reveal ground surface. Locations within the APE nearest to previously recorded sites within a 500-foot radius were examined carefully to determine whether cultural constituents of those sites extended into the APE. Because the majority of the pipeline would be installed in paved road right-of-way, and because most of the Project does not propose to utilize the types of vibration-inducing construction equipment or methods that would be expected to cause damage to buildings and structures adjacent to the APE 1, an intensive survey by an architectural historian was not completed for the Project. Architectural and structural resources in the APE were initially noted during the archaeological survey. Architectural resources previously documented during local historic resources surveys were mapped in relation to the Project area. On February 17, 2016, an ESA architectural historian completed a subsequent survey for documentation and evaluation purposes. The architectural historian photographed the resources and completed Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms 523B, which included all necessary elements for additional archival research and evaluation. The Chanticleer Site was not accessible and an archaeological identification survey was not feasible at that location. Archaeological Resources Eight (8) archaeological resources are within or immediately adjacent to the Project area. These resources are all located along pipeline alignments, and are not within or adjacent to the nonlinear facilities (SC WWTF, Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site, or construction area for the recharge wells, monitoring wells, and associated pump stations). CA-SCR-12/H (P-44-000018) Site CA-SCR-12/H is a prehistoric site first recorded in 1950 by archaeologists Donald Lathrop and William Wallace during grading for the construction of a motel. Human bones had been uncovered and reportedly reburied. In 1974, a portion of the site was excavated by Meg Fritz from San Jose State University and John Fritz from the University of California at Santa Cruz. The archaeologists excavated numerous cultural materials including lithic and groundstone 1 Construction-related vibration can cause structural damage to historic buildings and structures. Given the proximity and age of existing structures to sites for which PWS components are proposed, only vibratory rollers would cause potential vibratory impacts on historic buildings. (Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, 2009:40). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources artifacts, shell, bone, charcoal, beads, and human remains. Historic-era cultural materials were also uncovered. In 1979, additional finds were discovered including a burial with numerous artifacts, shells, beads, and bones. The materials were uncovered from a depth of 3 feet below the surface. ESA archaeologists relocated site CA-SCR-12/H during the pedestrian archaeological survey completed for the current Project. CA-SCR-80 (P-44-000085) In 1972, archaeologists Jean Stafford and Kim Fisher identified CA-SCR-80 as an area of shell midden with lithic materials, fire-cracked rock, shell, and charcoal. They noted that development had nearly destroyed the site. ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-80 during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road right-of-way and the adjacent area has been highly disturbed from an improvement Project in the early 2000s. CA-SCR-93/H (P-44-000097) First formally recorded in 1974, site CA-SCR-93/H is an extensive prehistoric site containing shell midden, lithic tools and fragments, shell-cut beads, charmstones, and groundstone fragments. In addition, numerous historic-era artifacts have been uncovered including a Missionera spindle whorl, an inscribed bone, a Civil War button, and lead toys. Two excavations and a monitoring program have been conducted at CA-SCR-93/H (Bourdeau, 1986). ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-93/H during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road right-of-way. The adjacent parcels, where site materials had been identified in the past, were not accessible to the surveyors. CA-SCR-168/H (P-44-000170) Site CA-SCR-168/H extends over 2,000 feet north and south of the Highway 1 into developed areas and is situated on an elevated plateau above the Soquel Creek floodplain. Beginning in 1978, several different surveys and test excavation identified discontiguous areas of shell midden (Cartier, 1978; Breschini et al., 1984; Waldron and Jones, 1987; Breschini and Haversat, 1989); in 1996, the NWIC defined a large site boundary encompassing these areas. Numerous artifacts have been identified including mortars, pestles, charmstones, chert and obsidian flakes and tools, shell, and bone. Historic-era artifacts were also identified prior to development in the area. In 1984, archaeologists Gary S. Breschini, Trudy Haversat and Paul Hampson conducted test excavations at CA-SCR-168/H in the portion of the site nearest to the current APE (Breschini et al., 1984). The excavations were completed prior to development. The archaeologists concluded that while the site had been largely disturbed by many years of cultivation, the site was significant and recommended that none of the soils be removed from the property. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-168/H during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road rights-of-way. Areas adjacent to the site were either paved or very disturbed and no cultural materials were identified. CA-SCR-269/H (P-44-000271) Site CA-SCR-269/H consists of isolated locations of chert and obsidian flakes as well as historicera glass and ceramic fragments. Archaeologists identified the site in 1985 during grading for a parking lot. ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-269/H during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road right-of-way. Areas adjacent to the roadway were paved and the ground surface was not visible. CA-SCR-292/H (P-44-000285) Site CA-SCR-292/H consists of a prehistoric lithic concentration of chert debitage with firecracked rock, ground stone fragments, and shell. Archaeologist Dana McGowan identified the site in 1991; since that time, a building was constructed on the main portion of the site. In 2014, archaeologist Michael Newland from Sonoma State University conducted a surface and subsurface investigation in the vicinity of the site (Newland, 2014a and 2014b). The subsurface study consisted of excavating five mechanical auger samples in the road right-of-way. One sample identified cultural materials (represented by seven fragments of chert debitage) at a depth of 8 to 12 inches below the surface. The other four samples did not identify any cultural materials. Subsequently, archaeologists from Holman and Associates drafted an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan for the Project that outlined monitoring requirements during Project implementation. Based on the documentation at the NWIC, as of March 25, 2016 the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) had not yet concurred with the Project findings. ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-292/H during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road rights-of-way. Areas adjacent to the roadway were paved or landscaped and the native ground surface was not visible. CA-SCR-293 (P-44-000286) In 1991, archaeologist Dana McGowan identified CA-SCR-293 as an area of shell midden and sparse lithic fragments. It was noted that the site might be fill material. ESA archaeologists did not relocate site CA-SCR-293 during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road right-of-way. The adjacent area has been highly disturbed from an improvements project in the early 2000s. P-44-000302 Resource P-44-000302 is recorded as a small patch of dark soil and seven marine shell fragments identified during a survey. The shell and dark soil were not found in association. No other cultural materials were identified. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources ESA archaeologists did not relocate site P-44-000302 at the recorded location during the current survey effort. The APE is limited to the road rights-of-way. The adjacent area is paved. Architectural Resources ESA identified four architectural resources in the Project area during the survey effort. These resources include two residential buildings at the Headquarters-West Annex Site, one residential building at the Chanticleer site, and the complex of industrial buildings that comprise the SC WWTF. These resources have been evaluated for their potential significance and eligibility for listing in the California and National Registers. In addition, the City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola historic resources surveys lists 40 buildings and structures immediately adjacent to the area of direct impact for the Project (Archives and Architecture, 2013; Chase et al., 1989; Page and Associates, 1976; Swift, 2004). Residential Buildings at the Headquarters-West Annex Site Description The Headquarters-West Annex Site includes two buildings at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue on a 52,185-square foot (sf) lot (APN#030-241-20). According to the Santa Cruz County Assessor, 2850 Capitola Avenue was built in 1890. According to the County Housing Authority, the building at 2820 Capitola Avenue was built in 1950. The building at 2850 Capitola Avenue is located approximately in the center of the parcel. The 836-sf building is a two-story, wood-frame building that appears to have originally been a residence, with a roughly U-shaped plan. The building’s exterior appears to be in poor condition. It is capped by a composition shingle clad roof with gabled and shed roof forms. The exterior walls are clad in an assortment of horizontal and vertical wood siding, plywood, and gypsum panels. All original fenestration has been replaced/filled in with small rectangular openings with wire mesh. These extensive alterations give the building the appearance of a large chicken coop. The building at 2820 Capitola Avenue is located in the southwest corner of the parcel. The building is a single-story, wood-frame residence with an irregular-shaped plan that appears to have been constructed in multiple phases and with many alterations. The building’s exterior appears to be in poor condition. The exterior walls are clad in an assortment of wood siding and it is capped by a composition shingle clad roof with gabled, hipped, and shed forms. The area around the building is used for storage of rubbish, auto parts, and old furniture causing some areas of the parcel to be inaccessible to the surveyor. Research indicates that the residence at 2850 Capitola Avenue was occupied by the Millsap family from at least 1940 until at least 1977. Napoleon “Poley” Millsap and his wife Isabelle raised their two children, Lorrie Patrice and Darrell, in the house. Poley was a mechanic for Santa Cruz County, and he owned and operated Millsap’s Quarry (later known as Olive Springs Quarry) for ten years until 1953. Darrell “Bunky” Millsap (1931–2012) was an accomplished painter who won numerous local awards in his youth. In 1956, he graduated with a degree in commercial illustration from the Art Center School in Los Angeles and built a career as a prolific illustrator for publications in Southern California. He formed the Millsap/Kinyon Illustration partnership and later formed his own Darrel Millsap Illustration until he retired in 1999. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Beginning in 1960, Susan Fry operated her real estate office on the parcel, likely from 2820 Capitola Avenue. Research did not reveal information about this business. Evaluation ESA staff evaluated the buildings for their potential historical significance under California Register and National Register Criteria 1/a through 4/d. The buildings at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue existed as a single-family residence and also as a real estate office during the 20th century. The buildings were constructed at least 30 years before the oldest neighboring buildings and do not appear to be part of a larger residential development or subdivision. Research does not suggest that the buildings contributed to broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States, and for this reason is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 1/a. Several people are associated with the buildings, but none were found to have been important to local, California, or national history. The building is not associated with the productive life of Darrell Millsap, who lived in the residence as a child and became an accomplished illustrator in his adulthood in Southern California. Research did not reveal associations with any other significant persons. It therefore is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 2/b. Both buildings are vernacular in style and the products of unknown architects/builders. They are in fair to poor condition and do not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, region, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, and are not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 3/c. Research did not reveal that the buildings at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue would provide important information relevant to history or prehistory that was not already known. For these reasons, the buildings are not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 4/d. Integrity The buildings at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue remain in their original locations and therefore retain integrity of location. However, the present residential neighborhood has developed from what was once an agricultural area with few buildings, and setting has been compromised. Both buildings have been extensively altered and have lost integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The buildings retain a very low degree of integrity. Summary As the buildings at 2820 and 2850 Capitola Avenue do not meet any of the California or National Register criteria and retain a very low degree of integrity, ESA recommends them to be ineligible for listing in the California or National Registers. Subsequent to the evaluations in December 2016, the buildings were demolished and removed from the site. Residential Building at the Chanticleer Site Description The Chanticleer Site is an 83,809-sq. ft. lot located at the southwest corner of Chanticleer and Soquel avenues in the city of Santa Cruz. It is occupied by a 1,140-sq. ft. residential building located near the northeast corner of the lot. A gated gravel driveway on Chanticleer Avenue is the only point of entry to the parcel, which is surrounded by a chain link fence on its north, east, and west sides. There are no formal landscape elements, and most of the parcel is undeveloped. The subject building has been abandoned for an unknown period of time. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources The building located at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue is two-stories in height, roughly rectangular in plan, clad in stucco, and capped by a combination of gabled, flat, and shed roofs clad with composition shingles. A 1952 aerial photograph shows that the land surrounding the subject building was formerly occupied by larger agricultural properties and smaller residential lots. The residence was occupied by William R. and Clara Pitman in 1950-1954. The earliest newspaper mention of this address in 1950 is an advertisement for “red fryer” chickens and white roasting hens, indicating that the parcel operated as a poultry farm (Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 8, 1950:16). Kenneth and Alma Tuttle occupied the farm from 1954 until at least 1960, during which time the parcel was known as Tuttle’s Poultry Ranch (Santa Cruz Sentinel, October 29, 1954:16). In 1963, the building was occupied by Robert and Tina Ann Dabbs and their two children (Santa Cruz Sentinel, March 17, 1963:34). The Dabbs divorced in 1966 and likely vacated the house around that time. Robert Dabbs would later co-own The Afro Company at 314 Laurel Street in Santa Cruz, which sold “art, clothing, sculpture, authentic headdresses, and all products pertaining to Black heritage and culture” (Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 8, 1974:27). The parcel has been owned by Arthur Lam since at least 1972, and a cursory search of city directories published since that time indicate that he has never resided there. An internet search indicates that 2505 Chanticleer Avenue was more recently occupied by Davey Tree Surgery at an unknown time. Evaluation ESA staff evaluated the building for its potential historical significance under California Register and National Register Criteria 1/a through 4/d. The subject building at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue existed as a single-family residence and poultry farm during the mid-20th century. Aerial photographs illustrate that earlier buildings and structures occupied the lot, and it is possible that the parcel was originally developed as one of the “poultry plants” constructed in ca. 1921-22 as part of the Wilson Brothers Tract No. 2, which occupied land between Soquel Road (Soquel Avenue did not exist at that time), Capitola Road, and Chanticleer Avenue (Santa Cruz Evening News, December 7, 1921:2). Although research did not definitively conclude that this was in fact the case, it is likely that 2505 Chanticleer Avenue contributed to broad patterns of the poultry industry in the Live Oak area of Santa Cruz, and for this reason it is recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 1/a. (Note: 2505 Chanticleer Avenue is not one of the 12 “chicken landmarks” identified in 2006 by volunteer members of the Live Oak History Project as properties of prioritized historical significance.) Several people are known to have been associated with the subject building, but none were found to have been important to local, California, or national history. The residence at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue therefore is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 2/b. The subject building is vernacular in style and the product of an unknown architect/builder. It is in poor condition and does not embody distinctive characteristics of a type, region, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value, and it is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 3/c. Research did not reveal that the subject building at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue would provide important information relevant to history or pre-history that was not already known. For these reasons, the subject building is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 4/d. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Integrity The building at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue remains on its original site and therefore retain integrity of location. The present neighborhood has developed from what was once an agricultural and residential area to be characterized by higher density residential and commercial development, and setting has been compromised. The building appears to have been extensively altered and has lost integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The building has not been used as a residence or a poultry farm for many years, and integrity of association with those uses has been lost. The subject building retains a very low degree of integrity. Summary Although the building at 2505 Chanticleer Avenue appears to be eligible for listing under Criterion 1/a it does not retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. Therefore, ESA recommends it to be ineligible for listing in the California or National Registers. Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Description This resource is the campus of industrial buildings and structures that comprise the SC WWTF in the City of Santa Cruz. The SC WWTF occupies an area north of Bay Street between West Cliff Drive on the east, the Santa Cruz Branch Line Railroad on the south, California Street on the west, and Neary Lagoon Park on the north. All buildings were constructed at a lower elevation than Bay Street, and the campus is mostly hidden from view at the level of surrounding streets. All vehicular traffic enters the SC WWTF by an access road from California Street. The entire SC WWTF is paved with asphalt. The campus was built in several phases between 1948 and circa 2000, and extant buildings are of reinforced concrete construction. Evaluation An ESA architectural historian evaluated the SC WWTF for its potential historical significance under California Register and National Register Criteria 1/a through 4/d. While the campus as a whole was investigated, only the historic-age buildings that fit into the period of significance were evaluated. The buildings that were evaluated are Digesters 2 and 3, the water tank, the process control/administration building, the Primary Sedimentation Structure, Dissolved air flotation Tank 1, and the Influent Pump Station. The majority of the buildings and structures on the campus are less than 50 years old and are not age-eligible to be considered for listing in the California or National Registers. The SC WWTF provides necessary public services, and it is not exceptional or significant for the role that it plays in Santa Cruz and the surrounding area. The facility won several awards and recognitions in the last 15 years, but not enough time has passed to gain a historical perspective on those events. Other water treatment plants in California predate the SC WWTF, including the 1895 filtration plant at Lake Chabot in Castro Valley, which was the first and “long the most important” on the Pacific Coast. Prior to the 1920s, large-scale filtration plants had been used by larger cities in the eastern United States for decades, but California had focused on smaller scale local water distribution. Research does not suggest that the SC WWTF contributed to broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States, and for this reason it is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 1/a. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Research did not reveal that the SC WWTF is associated with any people who were/are important to local, California, or national history. Numerous people were involved in the design and construction of the SC WWTF, and numerous others have been employed there over the years. However, none of these individuals has made specific contributions to history that have been identified and documented as associated with this SC WWTF. For these reasons, the SC WWTF is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 2/b. The oldest buildings at the SC WWTF (Digesters 2 and 3 and the water tank) were designed in a simple utilitarian architectural style with restrained Streamline Moderne details. The Primary Sedimentation Structure, parts of which date from 1965 and circa 1968–1988, was also designed in a utilitarian style. Even though the Streamline Moderne style had come to its popular end around 1950, this building exhibits some elements associated with Streamline Moderne, presumably in order to appear harmonious with the earlier buildings. It must be emphasized that the style of these buildings is not Streamline Moderne; rather the buildings are designed in a utilitarian style (meaning that the design is dictated primarily by the building’s function). The Streamline Moderne details are so subtle that the buildings are not considered to embody distinctive characteristics of that style. Nor do they exemplify a method of construction or possess high artistic value. The three buildings dating from 1948 were designed by civil engineer Daniel M. McPhetres who also designed the Oak Creek and Kilburn Road bridges in Stanislaus County (1918; www.historicbridges.org), the Soquel Drive Bridge in Aptos (1928; www.bridgehunter.com), and the Stockton Avenue Bridge in Capitola for the Works Progress Administration (1934; www.livingnewdeal.org). Research revealed little information about McPhetres. Even though he may have been a prominent local engineer, this would indicate that the buildings are not the work of a master. The process control/administration building, which was built in 1965, was enlarged after 1988. Historic photographs of the building were not found, but the extent of the alterations indicate that it no longer exhibits its original design. The dissolved air flotation tank 1 and the Influent Pump Station are simply designed utilitarian buildings with little architectural detail. For these reasons, the SC WWTF is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 3/c. Research did not reveal that the SC WWTF would provide important information relevant to history or pre-history that was not already known. For these reasons, the SC WWTF is not recommended eligible for listing under Criterion 4/d. Integrity The buildings and structures that comprise the SC WWTF remain in their original locations and therefore retain integrity of location. Likewise, the residential and natural setting is similar to the historic setting. The buildings that were surveyed retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, and association. In summary, the SC WWTF retains a high degree of integrity. Summary As the SC WWTF does not meet any of the California and National Register criteria but retains a high degree of integrity, ESA recommends it to be ineligible for listing in the California and National Registers. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources 4.5.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Effects of federal undertakings on historic and archaeological resources are considered through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 United States Code [U.S.C.] 306108), and its implementing regulations. Before an undertaking (e.g., federal funding or issuance of a federal permit) is implemented, Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (i.e., properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register) and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing in the National Register. Under the NHPA, a property is considered significant if it meets the National Register listing criteria a through d, at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 60.4, as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and that: a) Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or b) Are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or c) Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or d) Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history For a resource to be eligible for the National Register, it must also retain enough integrity to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey its significance. Resources that are less than 50 years old are generally not considered eligible for the National Register. Federal review of the effects of undertakings on significant cultural resources is carried out under Section 106 of the NHPA and is often referred to as the Section 106 review. This process is the responsibility of the federal lead agency. The Section 106 review typically involves a four-step procedure, which is described in detail in the implementing regulations of the NHPA: • Define the Area of Potential Effects in which an undertaking could directly or indirectly affect historic properties. • Identify historic properties in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and interested parties. • Assess the significance of effects of the undertaking on historic properties. • Consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and proceed with the Project according to the conditions of the agreement. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources State The State of California consults on implementation of the NHPA of 1966, as amended, and also oversees statewide comprehensive cultural resource surveys and preservation programs. The California Office of Historic Preservation, as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA statewide. The Office of Historic Preservation also maintains the California Historical Resources Inventory. The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions. California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq., is the principal statute governing the environmental review of projects in the state. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on historical resources, including archaeological resources. The CEQA Guidelines define a historical resource as: (1) a resource in the California Register; (2) a resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); or (3) any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a project would have a significant effect on important archaeological resources, either historical resources or unique archaeological resources. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is a historical resource, the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 would apply and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5(c) and 15126.4 and the limits in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 would not apply. If a lead agency determines that an archaeological site is an historical resource, the provisions of PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would apply. If an archaeological site does not meet the CEQA Guidelines criteria for a historical resource, then the site may meet the threshold of PRC Section 21083 regarding unique archaeological resources. A unique archaeological resource is “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria. • Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. • Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. • Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person” (PRC Section 21083.2 [g]). The CEQA Guidelines note that if a resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the effects of the Project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[c][4]). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Local County of Santa Cruz General Plan The following objective and policies from the County of Santa Cruz General Plan apply to cultural resources within the Project area: Objective 5.19: Archaeological Resources. To protect and preserve archaeological resources for their scientific, educational, and cultural values, and for their value as local heritage. Policies 5.19.1 Evaluation of Native American Cultural Sites. Protect all archaeological resources until they can be evaluated. Prohibit any disturbance of Native American Cultural Sites without an appropriate permit. Maintain the Native American Cultural Sites ordinance. 5.19.2 Site Surveys. Require an archaeological site survey (surface reconnaissance) as part of the environmental review process for all projects with very high site potential as determined by the inventory of archaeological sites, within the Archaeological Sensitive Areas, as designated on General Plan and LCP Resources and Constraints Maps filed in the Planning Department. 5.19.3 Development Around Archaeological Resources. Protect archaeological resources from development by restricting improvements and grading activities to portions of the property not containing these resources, where feasible, or by preservation of the site through project design and/or use restrictions, such as covering the site with earthfill to a depth that ensures the sites will not be disturbed by development, as determined by a professional archaeologist. 5.19.4 Archaeological Evaluations. Require the applicant for development proposals on any archaeological site to provide an evaluation, by a certified archaeologist, of the significance of the resource and what protective measures are necessary to achieve General Plan and LCP Land Use Plan objectives and policies. 5.19.5: Native American Cultural Sites. Prohibit any disturbance of Native American Cultural Sites without an archaeological permit which requires but is not limited to the following: a) A statement of the goals, methods, and techniques to be employed in the excavation and analysis of the data, and the reasons why the excavation will be of value. b) A plan to ensure that artifacts and records will be properly preserved for scholarly research and public education. c) A plan for disposing of human remains in a manner satisfactory to local Native American Indian groups. 4.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on cultural resources if it would cause: Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource that is either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register or a local register of historic resources; • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource; • Disturbance of human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Approach to Analysis Architectural Resources Potential impacts on architectural resources are assessed by identifying any activities (either during construction or operations) that could affect resources identified as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Once a resource has been identified as a CEQA historical resource, it then must be determined whether the impacts of the Project would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historic resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[b][1]). A historical resource is materially impaired through the demolition or alteration of the resource’s physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in the California Register (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]). Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources can include historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in PRC Section 21083.2(g). The significance of most prehistoric and historic-era archaeological sites is usually assessed under California Register Criteria 4. These criteria stress the importance of the information potential contained within the site, rather than its significance as a surviving example of a type or its association with an important person or event. Archaeological resources also may be evaluated under California Register Criteria 1, 2, and/or 3. Under CEQA archaeological resources also may be assessed as unique archaeological resources, defined as archaeological artifacts, objects, or sites that contain information needed to answer important scientific research questions. Impacts on unique archaeological resources or archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources are assessed pursuant to PRC Section 21083.2 which states that the lead agency shall determine whether the Project may have a significant effect on archaeological resources. As with architectural resources above, whether the impacts of the Project would “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource must be determined (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]). Human Remains Human remains, including those buried outside of formal cemeteries, are protected under several state laws, including Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. This analysis considers impacts on human remains including intentional disturbance, mutilation, or removal of interred human remains. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Impact Summary Table 4.5-1 summarizes the potential cultural resource impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project and shows the significance determination for each impact. TABLE 4.5-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – CULTURAL RESOURCES Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.5-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. LSM Impact 4.5-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including those determined to be a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5 or a unique archaeological resource defined in PRC 21083.2. LSM Impact 4.5-3: The Project could potentially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. LSM NOTE: LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Impact Discussion Impact 4.5-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The following discussion focuses on architectural resources. Archaeological resources, including archaeological resources that are potentially historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, are addressed under Impact 4.5-2. Based on the results of the background research, survey, and evaluation provided above, there are no historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register in the Project area. ESA staff evaluated the residential buildings near the Headquarters-West Annex site, the residential building at the Chanticleer site, and the SC WWTF and recommends that none of the buildings or structures meet the California or National Register criteria and are therefore not historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. As there are no historical resources in the Project area, there would be no direct impact on historical resources. However, as discussed in Impact 4.13-4, vibration from construction equipment used during excavation and backfilling could result in cosmetic or other damage to 18 buildings previously recorded as part of the City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola historic resources surveys if large vibratory compactors were operated near the buildings (see Table 4.13-9 for a list of the buildings). Mitigation Measures 4.13-3, Vibration Monitoring for Pipeline Installation in the Vicinity of Historic Buildings, require that site buildings be monitored, and to modify pipeline placement and/or modify construction equipment uses to types with less vibration potential. With implementation of these measures, the potential for vibration impact on contributory buildings would be less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Measure 4.13-3: Vibration Monitoring for Pipeline Installation in the Vicinity of Historic Buildings (applies to buildings listed in Table 4.13-9). Refer to Impact 4.13-4 in Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration, for details. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. ____________________________ Impact 4.5-2: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including those determined to be a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5 or a unique archaeological resource defined in PRC 21083.2. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) This section discusses archaeological resources that are potentially historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources defined in Section 21083.2(g). The results of the background research, environmental assessment, and archaeological surface survey indicate that there are eight prehistoric and/or multicomponent (prehistoric and historicera) archaeological resources in or immediately adjacent to the Project area. These resources are all located along pipeline alignments, and are not within or adjacent to the nonlinear facilities or construction area for the AWPF and recharge well sites. The archaeological sites (CA-SCR-12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR-269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CA-SCR-293; and P-44-000302) have been identified as a result of the archaeological resources assessment conducted for the proposed Project. All of the sites consist of dark midden soil with shell fragments and artifacts, indicative of prehistoric archaeological sites in the Santa Cruz County area. The sites have been recorded immediately adjacent to paved roadways and it is unknown whether the sites extend into the areas for which Project components are proposed. The existing pavement makes it impossible to visually determine whether the sites extend into the Project areas, as pavement presently obscures access to portions of the Project areas adjacent to the identified archaeological sites. While formal evaluation has not been conducted to determine whether any of the archaeological sites qualify as eligible for listing in the California Register, sufficient information exists to suggest that the sites qualify as “historical resources” pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5(a)(4) and Public Resources Code 21098.1. As such, for the purposes of the analysis in this EIR, the District considers these sites to be “historical resources.” Where there are known historical resources that could be affected by the Project, there is potential for a significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a (Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan), which would ensure that site constituents are identified in the Project area prior to Project implementation and either avoided during construction, and/or appropriately treated. 2 This mitigation measure only applies to pipeline alignments in the vicinity of known 2 As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to inform and support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the final selected components and alignments would be known, and the design could progress to a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources archaeological sites (CA-SCR-12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CA-SCR-293; and P-44-000302). With implementation of this mitigation measure, the Project’s potential effects on archaeological resources would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. The Chanticleer Site is privately owned and would require District acquisition prior to Project implementation, if the site were selected. Currently the site is not accessible and an archaeological resources identification survey was not feasible. If the Chanticleer Site is chosen as the location for the AWPF and pump station, Project construction could cause impacts to as-yet-unknown archaeological resources, a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b (Cultural Resources Study of the Chanticleer Site), would reduce the potential for such impacts through a preconstruction cultural resources identification study to determine whether previously unrecorded archaeological resources are present. The results of the study would provide additional recommendations including site avoidance, construction monitoring, evaluation efforts, or inadvertent discovery protocol. Implementation of this mitigation measure would reduce potential impacts on archaeological resources at the Chanticleer Site to a less-than-significant level. Following implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a and Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b, there may still be the potential to uncover previously unknown archaeological resources during Project ground disturbing activities. Impacts to unknown archaeological resources would be potentially significant. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2c (Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources), which would ensure that if archaeological resources were identified during ground disturbing activities, construction would halt, a qualified archaeological consultant would assess the find, and appropriate actions (including consideration of avoidance) would be enacted. Mitigation Measures Measure 4.5-2a: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan. This mitigation measure only applies to pipeline alignments in the vicinity of known archaeological sites (CA-SCR-12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR-269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CA-SCR-293; and P-44-000302). Prior to the 30% design plans for the Project, the District shall: 1. Relocate Project components to a location that would not potentially affect historical resources. 2. Or if relocation is infeasible and historical resources would potentially be affected, design and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) to determine whether site constituents of the known historical resources extend into the Project area. The investigation would be completed under the methods and research design outlined in an ARDTP. A qualified archaeologist (defined as one meeting the Secretary of the more advanced level. At that time, the District (or the District’s contractor) would prepare the subject plans, based upon the location- and design-specific information available at that time. As the Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan is tailored to the specific locations on which construction activities would occur, to prepare these plans before the final Project siting and design has been determined would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology) shall prepare the ARDTP in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe(s) of the Project area. The ARDTP shall addresses, at a minimum, the following: the establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas; treatment and recovery of important scientific data contained within the portions of the historical resources located within and adjacent to the Project area; construction worker cultural resources sensitivity training; archaeological and Native American monitoring; inadvertent discovery protocols; and provisions for curation of recovered materials. The ARDTP shall address the methods for subsurface investigation at each of the nine historical resources that could be affected by components of the selected Project (CA-SCR12/H; CA-SCR-80; CA-SCR-93/H; CA-SCR-168/H; CA-SCR-269/H; CA-SCR-292/H; CA-SCR-293; and P-44-000302) to determine whether the site constituents within the Project area contribute to each of the sites’ overall eligibility. The subsurface investigation shall address whether the portions of the sites within the Project area contain important scientific data (Criterion 4) or other archaeological materials of traditional/cultural value to Native American tribes (Criteria 1, 2, and 3). The ARDTP shall include the specific methods that will be employed at each site location (i.e., the length and depth of excavation, the type of equipment utilized, the percent of area investigated at each site location). The investigation may include trenching or coring in the Project area adjacent to the known site components. The ARDTP shall identify how the proposed plan would preserve any significant historical information obtained and identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the resources, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a technical report that provides a full artifact catalog, analysis of items collected, results of any special studies conducted, and interpretations of the resource within a regional and local context. All technical documents shall be placed on file at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. The results report shall include recommendations for archaeological and Native American monitoring in Environmentally Sensitive Areas of the proposed Project to the extent deemed appropriate by the qualified archaeologist who carried out the work described here. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Measure 4.5-2b: Cultural Resources Study of the Chanticleer Site. If the Chanticleer Site is chosen as the location for the AWPF and pump station, the District shall conduct an archaeological resources investigation for the Chanticleer Site Project area that includes, at a minimum: • An updated records search at the NWIC; • An intensive archaeological resources survey of the Chanticleer Site Project area; • A memorandum disseminating the results of this research; and, • If a potential archaeological resource is identified, develop and implement an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan per Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Measure 4.5-2c: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era archaeological resources are encountered by construction personnel during Project implementation, all construction activities within 100 feet shall halt until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked-stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden) containing heat-affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles, hand stones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammer stones and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If a find is evaluated and determined to be significant, a mitigation plan shall be developed that recommends preservation in place as a preference or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. The mitigation plan shall be developed in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe(s), as appropriate. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding the resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover scientifically consequential information from the resource prior to any excavation at the site. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the Project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context; reporting of results within a timely manner; curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility; and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.5-3: The Project could disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Prehistoric archaeological resources may contain human burials. Based on the background research and surface survey there are locations very near to the Project area that have been used for human burial purposes. The possibility of encountering human remains, including those associated with the several prehistoric archaeological resources in the vicinity of the Project area, cannot be entirely discounted. Project-related disturbance of human remains would be a significant impact. The potential for such impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level through implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 (Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains). The measure sets forth protocols and procedures for responding in the event that human remains are identified during ground disturbing activities, including halting construction, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources contacting the County Coroner to assess the find, among other appropriate actions (including contacting the Most Likely Descendant). Mitigation Measure Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. In the event human remains are uncovered during construction activities for the Project, the District shall immediately halt work, contact the Santa Cruz County Coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols pursuant to Section 15064.5(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 48 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American. The Most Likely Descendent will make recommendations for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ 4.5.5 References – Cultural Resources Archives and Architecture, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey Volume III. Prepared for Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Santa Cruz, March 2013. Breschini, Gary S., and Trudy Haversat, Report on Subsurface Archaeological Excavations at CA-SCR-168, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Community Planning Consultants. On file (S-10900), NWIC, 1989. Breschini, Gary S., Trudy Haversat and Paul Hampson, Secondary (Subsurface) Testing of a Portion of CA-SCR-168 at Highway 1 and Wharf Road, Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Community Planning Consultants. On file (S-7005), NWIC, 1984. Bourdeau, L. Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Form for CA-SCR-93/H (P-44-00097). On file, NWIC, July 1986. Cartier, Robert, 1978. Preliminary Archaeological Evaluation of 4-SCR-168. Prepared for Environmental Science Associates. On file (S-3921), NWIC, 1978. Chase, John, Daryl Allen, and Jeanne Gordon, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey Volume II. Prepared for Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Santa Cruz, May 1989. “D. M. McPhetres,” Bridgehunter.com: Historic Bridges of the United States. Available at www.bridgehunter.com. Accessed on March 17, 2017. “D. M. McPhetres, Bridge Engineer,” The Living New Deal. Available at www.livingnewdeal.org. Accessed on March 17, 2017. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources Helley, E., K. LaJoie, W. Spangle and M. Blair, 1979. Flatland deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region, CA–their geology and engineering properties and their importance to comprehensive planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943, United States Department of the Interior. Washington, DC., 1979. Hoover, M. B., H. E. Rensch, E. G. Rensch, W. N. Abeloe, 2002. Historic Spots in California. Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2002. Jones, T.L., N.E. Stevens, D.A. Jones, R.T. Fitzgerald, and M.G. Hylkema, 2007. The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In Prehistoric California: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, pp. 125–146, AltaMira Press. 2007. “Kilburn Road Bridge,” HistoricBridges.org. Available at www.historicbridges.org. Accessed on March 17, 2017. LSA, Cultural Resource Background Report and Archaeological Sensitivity May for the City of Santa Cruz General Plan Update. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz, December 2006. Mayer, K. E. and Laudenslayer W. F. Jr. ed., 1988, A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. Meyer, J., and J. Rosenthal, 2007. Geoarchaeological Overview of the Nine Bay Area Counties in Caltrans District 4. Prepared for Caltrans District 4, 2007. Milliken, Randall, Laurence H. Shoup, and Beverley R. Ortiz, 2009. Ohlone/Costanoan Indians of the San Francisco Peninsula and their Neighbors, Yesterday and Today. Prepared for National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation Area. June 2009. Moratto, M.J., California Archaeology, Smithsonian Press: San Diego, 1984. Newland, Michael, 2014a. Results of a Subsurface Archaeological Investigation for the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District's Soquel Creek Transmission Main Project, City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Santa Cruz County Sanitation District. Newland, Michael, 2014b. Results of a Subsurface Archaeological Investigation for the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District's Soquel Creek Transmission Main Project, City of Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Santa Cruz County Sanitation District. Page, Charles Hall and Associates, Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey Volume I. Prepared for Department of Planning and Community Development, City of Santa Cruz, 1976. Santa Cruz Sentinel, December 8, 1950. Available at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsbank. Accessed on March 17, 2017. ———, October 29, 1954. Available at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsbank. Accessed on March 17, 2017. ———, March 17, 1963. Available at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsbank. Accessed on March 17, 2017. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.5 Cultural Resources ———, December 8, 1974. Available at http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsbank. Accessed on March 17, 2017. Santa Cruz Evening News, December 7, 1921. Available at www.santacruzsentinel.com/newsbank. Accessed on March 17, 2017. Swift, Carolyn, Historic Context Statement for the City of Capitola. Prepared for City of Capitola Community Development Department. Prepared by Capitola Museum Director and City Historian. June 2004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. 1973. Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D-EPA-24001046) for the Treatment Facility Expansion and Interceptor Construction (WPC-CAL-593) in the City of Santa Cruz (9 January 1973; Appendix 10, pp. 10.5–10.6). Waldron, Wendy and Terry Jones, 1987. Archaeological Survey Report for a Proposed Interchange Reconstruction Project at the Bay Avenue/Porter Street Interchange on Highway 1 in Capitola, Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 4. On file (S-9343), NWIC, 1987. Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., 2009. Crystal Springs Pipeline No. 2 Noise and Vibration Study, Impacts and Mitigation Technical Memo (Final). September 2009. Wilson, Ihrig & Associates, Inc., ICF International, and Simpson, Gumpertz & Hege, Inc., 2012. Current Practices to Address Construction Vibration and Potential Effects to Historic Buildings Adjacent to Transportation Projects. September 2012. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.5-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.6.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential impacts of the Project related to energy use and conservation. Existing energy supply sources and energy use in the Project area and California are discussed. Regulatory requirements pertaining to energy use and conservation are described. The analysis included in this section was developed based on Project-specific construction and operational features, and energy supply and consumption data developed by organizations such as the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP), and the California Energy Commission. Mitigation measures are recommended to avoid or reduce the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary energy consumption associated with Project implementation. This section does not address the potential air pollutant or greenhouse gas emissions associated with various forms of energy consumption. See Sections 4.3, Air Quality, and 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, for those discussions. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Energy Conservation generally concern the Project’s energy consumption, relevant current and future energy requirements for the Project, the energy source to be utilized to operate Project components, and impacts of Project’s energy use on other energy users. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. CEQA Section 21100(b) requires evaluation of the potential energy impacts of a proposed project, and consideration of mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy associated with the Project. Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines provides three goals for energy conservation: • Decrease overall per capita energy consumption; • Decrease reliance on natural gas and oil; and • Increase reliance on renewable energy sources. In addition, Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that EIRs may include consideration of the following six energy conservation-related environmental impact types: 1. The Project’s energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of the Project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy intensiveness of materials may be discussed. 2. The effects of the Project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity. 3. The effects of the Project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy. 4. The degree to which the Project complies with existing energy standards. 5. The effects of the Project on energy resources. 6. The Project’s projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation alternatives. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.6.2 Environmental Setting The study area for the analysis of energy conservation impacts is state-wide in terms of energy supplies, as energy supplies are not always obtained from local or regional sources, and site specific in terms of energy consumption. California’s Energy Supplies With a relatively mild Mediterranean climate and strict energy efficiency and conservation requirements, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation (including the District of Columbia), indicating a low per capita use of energy (USEIA, 2018a). Nevertheless, with a population of 39.3 million people, California is the largest energy-consuming state in the U.S. (USEIA, 2018b). Electricity The production of electricity requires the consumption or conversion of energy resources such as water, wind, oil, gas, coal, solar, geothermal, and nuclear sources. Of the electricity generated in California in 2016, approximately 49.9 percent was generated by natural gas-fired power plants, 12.3 percent from hydroelectric, 0.2 percent of total net electricity generated came from coal-fired sources, 9.6 percent from nuclear, and 27.9 percent from renewable sources including solar and wind. The remaining balance came from oil and other unspecified sources of power (CEC, 2017). Gasoline and Diesel Gasoline is by far the largest transportation fuel by volume used in California. Nearly all of the gasoline used in California is obtained through the retail market. In 2016, 13.8 billion gallons of gasoline were sold in California’s retail market (CEC, 2018a). Diesel fuel is the second largest transportation fuel by volume used in California. In 2016, approximately 1.7 billion gallons of diesel were sold in California’s retail market (CEC, 2018a). Local Energy Systems Electricity Electricity is generated and distributed via a network of high voltage transmission lines commonly referred to as the power grid. In spring 2018, MBCP, a joint powers authority, began serving electricity to customers in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and San Benito counties as part of the Community Choice Energy (CCE) model established by the State of California. PG&E continues to maintain the power lines and provide customer service (MBCP, 2018). PG&E customers are automatically transferred to MBCP but can use PG&E for electricity generation services via the optout program. The District is not participating in the opt-out program and is using MBCP for its electricity generation services. Electricity delivered via MBCP is generated primarily via renewable energy sources. Total electricity consumed in Santa Cruz County in 2016 was 1,224,413 megawatthours (MWh) (CEC, 2018b). Gasoline and Diesel Fuel In 2016, all retail sales of gasoline and diesel in Santa Cruz County were 95 million gallons, and 6 million gallons, respectively (CEC, 2018b). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.6.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations Energy Policy and Conservation Act The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 was established in response to the oil crisis of 1973, which increased oil prices due to a shortage of reserves. The Act required that all vehicles sold in the U.S. meet certain fuel economy goals. Since 1990, the fuel economy standard for new passenger cars has been 27.5 miles per gallon. Since 1996, the fuel economy standard for new light trucks (gross vehicle weight of 8,500 pounds or less) has been 20.7 miles per gallon. Heavyduty vehicles (i.e., vehicles and trucks over 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight) are not subject to fuel economy standards. All passenger cars and light trucks that would be used directly or indirectly associated with the Project would be required to comply with the applicable fuel economy standards. Energy Policy Act of 2005 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 seeks to reduce reliance on non-renewable energy resources and provide incentives to reduce current demand on these resources. For example, under the Act, consumers and businesses can obtain federal tax credits for fuel-efficient appliances and products, including buying hybrid vehicles, building energy-efficient buildings, and improving the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Additionally, tax credits are available for the installation of qualified fuel cells, stationary microturbine power plants, and solar power equipment. State Regulations State of California Integrated Energy Policy In 2002, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1389, which required the California Energy Commission to develop an integrated energy plan every two years for electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuels, for the California Energy Policy Report. The plan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies a number of strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators in implementing incentive programs for Zero Emission Vehicles and their infrastructure needs, and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access. The California Energy Commission adopted the 2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report in February 2017. The 2016 Integrated Energy Policy Report provides the results of the agency’s assessment of a variety of issues, including: ensuring that the state has sufficient, reliable, and safe energy infrastructure to meet current and future energy demands; monitoring publicly-owned utilities’ progress toward achieving 10-year energy efficiency targets; defining and including zero-net-energy goals in State building standards; overcoming challenges to increase use of geothermal heat pump/ground loop technologies and procurement of biomethane; using demand response to meet California’s energy needs and integrate renewable technologies; removing barriers to bioenergy development; planning for California’s electricity infrastructure needs given potential retirement of power plants and the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation Station; estimating new generation costs for utility-scale renewable and fossil-fueled generation; planning for new or upgraded transmission infrastructure; monitoring utilities’ progress in implementing past recommendations related to nuclear power plants; tracking natural gas market trends; implementing the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program; addressing the vulnerability of California’s energy supply and demand infrastructure to the effects of climate change; and planning for potential electricity system needs in 2030. Although the integrated energy plan is not directly applicable to the Project given that the Project would not include utility-scale energy generation or transmission infrastructure, it is applicable to the operations of PG&E, which would maintain the electricity transmission infrastructure for the Project and MBCP, which would serve as the public utility that would provide electricity for the Project. Given that PG&E and MBCP are required to comply with the applicable provisions of the integrated energy plan, electricity obtained for the Project would be generated in a manner consistent with the spirit of the integrated energy plan. Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code) The California Building Standards Commission first established Energy Efficiency Standards for California in 1978, in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California's energy consumption. The standards, which are contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6 (also known as the California Energy Code) are updated periodically by the California Energy Commission to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The standards regulate energy consumed in nonresidential buildings for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting. Title 24 is implemented through the local planning and permit process and therefore Project components requiring building permits would be required to comply with Title 24. Title 24 is updated approximately every three years. The newest version became effective January 1, 2017, and continues to improve upon the standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings. Any heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and lighting systems that would be developed as part of the Project would be required to incorporate the applicable standards of Title 24. The Project would be required to be consistent with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. California Green Building Standards Code (Cal Green) On January 1, 2017, the California Building Standards Commission adopted the California Green Building Standards Code (Part 11 of the Title 24 Building Standards Code) for all new construction statewide. The code sets targets for energy efficiency, water consumption, dual plumbing systems for potable and recyclable water, diversion of construction waste from landfills, and use of environmentally sensitive materials in construction and design, including eco-friendly flooring, carpeting, paint, coatings, thermal insulation, and acoustical wall and ceiling panels. The code identifies non-residential mandatory measures regarding site selection, building design, building siting and development to protect, restore, and enhance the environmental quality of the site and respect the integrity of adjacent properties. The Project would be required to incorporate the applicable provisions of the California Green Building Standards Code and would therefore be consistent with this set of regulations. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation Local Regulations Climate Action Plans are discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Santa Cruz County Policies and Ordinances The following policies relating to energy conservation from the City of Santa Cruz General Plan may apply to this Project: Policy 5.17.1: Promote Alternative Energy Sources. Promote the use of energy sources which are renewable, recyclable and less environmentally degrading than non-renewable fossil fuels. Policy 5.17.3: Solar Access. Encourage maximum solar access orientation in siting new development, and require protection of solar access in existing development. Policy 5.17.4: Retrofit Programs. Encourage and stimulate energy conservation and the use of renewable energy through retrofit programs for residential, agricultural, commercial, public facilities and industrial land uses. Policy 5.17.5: Weatherization Improvements. Require energy efficiency and weatherization improvements in existing and new development including insulation, water conservation techniques, and encourage the installation of solar heating systems. Require a retrofit to meet energy efficiency standards upon sale or transfer of ownership. City of Santa Cruz General Plan The policies relating to energy conservation from the City of Santa Cruz General Plan do not appear to directly apply to the Project. City of Capitola General Plan The following policies relating to energy demand and conservation from the City of Capitola General Plan may apply to the Project: Policy OSC-4.1: On-Site Energy Generation. Encourage on-site energy generation in Capitola, including wind and solar, provided that significant adverse environmental impacts associated with such facilities can be mitigated. Policy OSC-4.2: Grid-Neutral Development. Encourage grid-neutral development that produces at least as much electricity as it consumes in a year. 4.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on energy use and conservation if it would: • Use large amounts of fuel or energy in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner; • Constrain local or regional energy supplies, require additional capacity, or affect peak and base periods of electrical demand; Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation • Require or result in the construction of new electrical generation and/or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; or • Conflict with existing energy standards, including standards for energy conservation. Approach to Analysis This analysis is based, in part, on basic assumptions regarding construction-related diesel and gasoline consumption for the Project, the District’s proposed energy efficiency design elements for the Project, and the District’s estimates of the operational electricity requirements of the Project. The analysis focuses on the anticipated energy demand and energy efficiency of the Project as a whole, including during construction, operation, and maintenance. This analysis assumes all electrical power needed for Project operations would be delivered by the local PG&E electrical power grid with electrical power provided by MBCP. Fuel Consumption Off-road equipment inventories and construction and maintenance activity assumptions were used to estimate fuel amounts that would be consumed by off-road equipment during construction and maintenance of the Project. Fuel consumption factors for off-road equipment were derived from equipment inventory data using CARB’s off-road emissions inventory database. Fuel use that would be associated with commuting workers and truck hauling during construction and operation of the Project were also estimated using trip data projected for the Project (see Appendix B, Fuel Consumption Factors and Assumptions, for all fuel consumption factors and assumptions). Energy Efficient Design Elements for Pure Water Soquel As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Project would use reverse osmosis (RO) technology to remove salts and other minerals/constituents from water. During the RO process pretreated source water is forced through RO membranes. Generating the necessary pressure can require a large amount of energy. However, the AWPF would incorporate various efficiency elements to reduce the operational energy demand. These elements include designing piping system materials and sizing to limit pressure losses and reduce pumping and energy requirements. Energy efficiency elements would also be incorporated into building support systems, electrical and treatment equipment, pumping systems and process design associated with the Project. Building support systems would comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards include the use of motion detectors for lighting, energy-efficient fluorescent lamps for interior lighting, and high-pressure sodium vapor lamps for exterior lighting. Areas of No Project Impact Based on the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Conflict with energy standards, including standards for energy conservation. The local government building permit application review process would ensure that the Project would be compliant with all applicable State and local energy conservation standards. In addition, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation the Project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations related to energy use and conservation. Therefore, no impact related to compliance with applicable energy and energy conservation standards would result, and this criterion is not discussed further in this section. Impact Summary A summary of the Project’s energy use and conservation impacts is presented in Table 4.6-1. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.6-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – ENERGY DEMAND AND CONSERVATION Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.6-1: The Project could use large amounts of fuel or energy in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner. Impact 4.6-2: Project would not constrain local or regional energy supplies, require additional capacity, affect peak and base periods of electrical demand, or otherwise require or result in the construction of new electrical generation and/or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. LSM LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Impact Discussion Impact 4.6-1: The Project could use large amounts of fuel or energy in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction Construction of the Project would require the use of fuels (primarily gasoline and diesel) for operation of construction equipment (e.g., excavators and graders), construction vehicles (e.g., dump and delivery trucks), and construction worker vehicles. Direct energy use may also include the limited use of electricity required to power construction equipment (e.g., electric power tools). In addition, Project construction would result in indirect energy use associated with the extraction, manufacturing, and transportation of raw materials to make construction materials. Indirect energy use typically represents about three-quarters of the total construction energy consumed, while direct energy use represents about one-quarter (Hannon et al., 1978). Although the precise amount of construction-related direct energy consumption that would occur under the Project is unknown because the final Project configuration has not been selected, fuel use amounts that would be required for the Project have been estimated based on a conservative Project development scenario of: a tertiary treatment system and pump station at the SC WWTF; an AWPF at the Chanticleer Site; recharge and monitoring wells at each of the three Recharge Well sites; and approximately 11 miles of conveyance pipeline. It is estimated that off-road construction equipment would operate for a total of approximately 23,390 hours and would consume a total of approximately 61,687 gallons of diesel fuel at an average rate of 2.7 gallons per hour over the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation construction period, which would occur in as few as 24 months. With regard to vehicle use during construction, workers’ personal vehicles would consume approximately 14,254 gallons of gasoline (assuming an average fuel economy of 20.7 miles per gallon) and heavy haul trucks would consume approximately 187,771 gallons of diesel fuel over the construction period (assuming an average consumption rate of 7.0 miles per gallon) (see Appendix B for all assumptions and fuel use factors). Under the conservative assumption that construction of each Project component in the development scenario would start on the same day, the maximum annual fuel use for off-road construction equipment and haul trucks would be up to approximately 153,060 gallons of diesel fuel and construction workers’ personal vehicles would consume up to approximately 10,080 gallons of gasoline during the first year of the construction period. These annual average fuel use amounts are equivalent to 0.01 percent and 2.6 percent of the total amounts of gasoline and diesel fuel, respectively, sold in Santa Cruz County in 2016. With regard to decommissioning of the Project, amounts of direct energy consumption that would occur at the end of the useful life of the Project (in approximately 50 years) related to decommissioning is unknown; however, it is anticipated that the amounts would be similar to those required for construction, discussed above. The amount of electricity and indirect energy consumption that would be associated with construction of the Project is unknown and cannot be estimated as it would be too speculative given existing data; however, given that the Project construction activities would be conducted primarily with diesel- and gasoline-fueled equipment and vehicles, the amounts would not be substantial. Operations With regard to long-term operations, employee personal vehicles would consume an estimated 2,257 gallons of gasoline per year, which would equate to less than 0.01 percent of the total amount of gasoline sold in Santa Cruz County in 2016. In addition to fuel use, implementation of the Project would increase the District’s total electrical demand by approximately 3,600 MWh per year, which would represent less than 0.01 percent of the total electricity used in in Santa Cruz County in 2016 (CEC, 2018b). Impact Determination While the overall transportation energy use requirements would not be significant relative to the overall sales of transportation fuels in the county, construction and decommissioning activities could result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy if construction and decommissioning equipment is not well maintained, if equipment is left to idle when not in use, or if haul trips are not planned efficiently. For all Project components, the potential for construction and decommissioning to use large amounts of fuel or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner is considered a significant impact. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 (Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan) and 4.3-1b (Idling Restrictions), which would ensure construction activities are conducted in a fuel-efficient manner and minimize idling times for construction equipment and vehicles, the impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Regarding operations, the impact associated with the potential for the Project to use large amounts of fuel or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner is considered to be less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation Mitigation Measures Measure 4.6-1: Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan. The District shall contract a qualified professional (i.e., construction planner/energy efficiency expert) to prepare a Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan that identifies the specific measures that the District (and its construction contractors) will implement as part of Project construction and decommissioning to increase the efficient use of construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible. Such measures shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: procedures to ensure that all construction equipment is properly tuned and maintained at all times; a commitment to utilize existing electricity sources where feasible rather than portable diesel-powered generators; and identification of procedures (including the routing of haul trips identified in implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1) that will be followed to ensure that all materials and debris hauling is conducted in a fuel-efficient manner. The plan shall be implemented throughout the construction and decommissioning periods. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1b: Idling Restrictions. (See Impact 4.3-1 in Section 4.3, Air Quality, for description.) Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.6-2: The Project would not constrain local or regional energy supplies, require additional capacity, affect peak and base periods of electrical demand, or otherwise require or result in the construction of new electrical generation and/or transmission facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. (Less than Significant) The Project’s impact on local and regional energy supplies depends on several factors; however, the primary energy source of concern associated with Project operation is electrical power provided by MBCP through the PG&E power grid infrastructure. The Project’s estimated electrical demand would be roughly 3,600 MWh per year, which would represent less than 0.01 percent of the total electricity used in Santa Cruz County in 2016 (CEC, 2018b). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the Project energy demands could be accommodated within the capacity of existing available electrical generation and transmission facilities. As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, new underground and aboveground power lines would be required to connect the proposed facilities to the existing local PG&E power grid. However, for the reasons above, the Project could be accommodated by the existing local and regional energy supplies and transmission infrastructure, and the impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.6 Energy Conservation 4.6.5 References – Energy Demand and Conservation California Energy Commission (CEC), 2017. Total System Electric Generation. Data as of June 23, 2017. Available at www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html. California Energy Commission (CEC), 2018a. California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results. Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/ gasoline/piira_retail_survey.html. Accessed on January 22, 2018. California Energy Commission (CEC), 2018b. Energy Almanac, Retail Gasoline and Diesel Sales by County. Available at http://energy.ca.gov/almanac/transportation_data/gasoline/piira_ retail_survey.html. Accessed on January 22, 2018. Hannon et al., 1978. Energy and Labor in the Construction Sector. Article in Science Magazine. November 24, 1978. Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP), 2018. About. Available at http://www.mbcommunitypower.org/about/. Accessed on March 27, 2018. U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA), 2018a. California State Profile and Quick Facts. Available at http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-1Accessed January 22, 2018. USEIA, 2018b. California Profile Data. Available at https://www.eia.gov/state/data.php?sid=CA Accessed on February 16, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.6-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology 4.7 Geology and Paleontology 4.7.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Project to result in adverse impacts associated with geologic, soils, seismic, and paleontological hazards. The analysis is based on review of available geologic and geotechnical reports and maps of the Project area and vicinity, including the feasibility study conducted for the Project, and reports and information published by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the California Geological Survey (CGS), and the Santa Cruz County General Plan. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Geology and Paleontology requested the EIR consider earthquakes, seismic events, or slope instability caused by the injection of water; impacts on rail lines from seismic rupture of brine pipelines; soil conditions that would not support the Project elements; nearby sinkholes; fracking-like impacts caused by groundwater recharge; and consistency with elements of the Santa Cruz County General Plan. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.7.2 Environmental Setting Topography and Drainage The Project area is entirely in the urban coastal area extending from the City of Santa Cruz in the west to Aptos in the east, as shown on Figure 3-1. The regional area gently slopes to the south from the Santa Cruz Mountains to Monterey Bay. Elevations range from about 15 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) to about 150 feet amsl at the Cabrillo College Recharge Well site. Surface water drainage is generally south toward Monterey Bay. The Project area is bisected by various drainages, also shown on Figure 3-1. Regional and Local Geology The Project area consists largely of Quaternary marine terraces that were formed by a combination of tectonic uplift and sea-level fluctuation (URS, 2013). The San Lorenzo River and other small streams dissected these marine terraces, cutting channels through the underlying bedrock and depositing fluvial sediments. These bedrock valleys were then filled with alluvium and shallow marine deposits. The bedrock units in the Project area are generally made up of siltstone of the Purisima Formation overlying the mudstone of the older Santa Cruz Mudstone. As a result, the Purisima Formation represents the majority of the exposed bedrock. The marine terrace typically is blanketed by Pleistocene coastal terrace deposits, with bedrock only exposed along the actively eroding coastal cliffs, and where creeks and river drainages are dissecting the terrace surface. These terrace deposits are described as semi-consolidated sands with a few thin layers of gravel deposited in nearshore marine environments. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology Soil Conditions Most of the Project components would be in fill or shallow soil units that have been disturbed by urban development. The average depth of the pipelines would be 8 to 9 feet below ground surface (bgs) with some extents as deep as 15 feet bgs. Therefore, the pipelines would be constructed within in fill, disturbed shallow soil, or possibly undisturbed shallow soil. Because of the anticipated softness of the soil underneath the SC WWTF, piles would be driven to a depth of approximately 70 feet below ground surface. Where undisturbed, some Project components would be situated on some variety of Watsonville loam soils, a variable mix of sand, silt, and clay (NRCS, 2017). The larger Project components that have foundations are listed below in Table 4.7-1, which identifies potentially damaging soil properties. The smaller Project components such as well heads and conveyance pipelines would be much less susceptible to damage from the listed soil properties since well heads have a small footprint and pipelines would be relatively flexible pipes constructed in shallow fill or previously disturbed soil. TABLE 4.7-1 SUMMARY OF SOIL PROPERTIES Soil Criteria SC WWTF Chanticleer Site HeadquartersWest Annex Site Expansive Soilsa Moderate Moderate Moderate Erosion - Water High High Moderate Erosion - Wind Moderate Moderate High Corrosion - Concrete Low Low Low Corrosion - Steel Moderate Moderate High NOTE: a Also referred to as shrink-swell potential or linear extensibility. SOURCE: NRCS, 2017; County of Santa Cruz, 2015 Expansive Soil Expansion and contraction of expansive soils in response to changes in moisture content can cause differential and cyclical movements that can cause damage and/or stress to shallow founded structures and equipment. Issues with expansive soils typically occur near the ground surface where changes in moisture content typically occur. As listed in Table 4.7-1, the Project components with foundations would be constructed in soils with a moderate potential for expansive soils. Shallow pipelines are relatively flexible and recharge wells would have a small footprint, resulting in each being less susceptible to damage from liquefaction. Erosion Erosion is the wearing away of soil and rock by processes such as mechanical or chemical weathering, mass wasting, and the action of water and wind. Excessive soil erosion can eventually lead to damage of building foundations and roadways. At the Project sites, areas that are susceptible to erosion are those that would be exposed during the construction phase. Typically, the soil erosion potential is reduced once the soil is graded and covered with concrete, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology structures, asphalt, or slope protection. As listed in Table 4.7-1, the Project components would be in soils with a moderate to high susceptibility to erosion. Corrosion Corrosion refers to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action that could corrode or deteriorate concrete, reinforcing steel in concrete structures, and bare-metal structures exposed to these soils. The rate of corrosion is related to factors such as soil moisture, particle-size distribution, acidity, and the chemical composition and electrical conductivity of the soil. As listed in Table 4.7-1, the Project components with foundations would be constructed in soils with a low potential to corrode concrete but a moderate to high potential to corrode unprotected steel. Seismicity and Faults This section characterizes the region’s existing faults, describes historical earthquakes, estimates the likelihood of future earthquakes, and describes probable ground shaking effects. Earthquake Terminology and Concepts Earthquake Mechanisms and Fault Activity Faults are planar features within the earth’s crust that have formed to release strain caused by the dynamic movements of the earth’s major tectonic plates. An earthquake on a fault is produced when these strains overcome the inherent strength of the earth’s crust, and the rock ruptures. The rupture causes seismic waves that propagate through the earth’s crust, producing the ground shaking effect known as an earthquake. The rupture also causes variable amounts of slip along the fault, which may or may not be visible at the earth’s surface. Geologists commonly use the age of offset rocks as evidence of fault activity—the younger the displaced rocks, the more recently earthquakes have occurred. To evaluate the likelihood that a fault would produce an earthquake, geologists examine the magnitude and frequency of recorded earthquakes and evidence of past displacement along a fault. The California Geological Survey (CGS) defines an active fault as one that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (within the last 11,000 years; the U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] uses within the last 15,000 years). A Quaternary fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not mean that a fault lacking evidence of surface displacement is necessarily inactive. The term “sufficiently active” is also sometimes used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement has occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (CGS, 2007). For the purpose of delineating fault rupture zones, the CGS historically sought to zone faults defined as potentially active, which are faults that have shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary period (the last 1.6 million years). In late 1975, the State Geologist made a policy decision to zone only those faults that had a relatively high potential for ground rupture, determining that a fault should be considered for zoning only if it was sufficiently active and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology “well defined.” 1 Faults that are confined to pre-Quaternary rocks (more than 1.6 million years old) are considered inactive and incapable of generating an earthquake. Earthquake Magnitude When an earthquake occurs along a fault, its size can be determined by measuring the energy released during the event. A network of seismographs records the amplitude and frequency of the seismic waves that an earthquake generates. The Richter magnitude (ML) of an earthquake represents the highest amplitude measured by the seismograph at a distance of 100 kilometers from the epicenter. Richter magnitudes vary logarithmically with each whole-number step, representing a tenfold increase in the amplitude of the recorded seismic waves and 32 times the amount of energy released. While Richter magnitude was historically the primary measure of earthquake magnitude, seismologists now use Moment Magnitude (Mw) as the preferred way to express the size of an earthquake. The Mw scale is related to the physical characteristics of a fault, including the rigidity of the rock, the size of fault rupture, and the style of movement or displacement across the fault. Although the formulae of the scales are different, they both contain a similar continuum of magnitude values, except that Mw can reliably measure larger earthquakes and do so from greater distances. Peak Ground Acceleration A common measure of ground motion at any particular site during an earthquake is the peak ground acceleration (PGA). The PGA for a given component of motion is the largest value of horizontal acceleration obtained from a seismograph. PGA is expressed as the percentage of the acceleration due to gravity (g), which is approximately 9.8 meters per second squared. In terms of automobile acceleration, one “g” of acceleration is equivalent to the motion of a car traveling 328 feet from rest in 4.5 seconds. For comparison purposes, the maximum PGA value recorded during the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the vicinity of the epicenter exceeded 1 g in several areas. Unlike measures of magnitude, which provide a single measure of earthquake energy, PGA varies from place to place and is dependent on the distance from the epicenter and the character of the underlying geology (e.g., hard bedrock, soft sediments, or artificial fills). Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale assigns an intensity value based on the observed effects of groundshaking produced by an earthquake. Unlike measures of earthquake magnitude and PGA, the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is qualitative in nature in that it is based on actual observed effects rather than measured values. Similar to PGA, Modified Mercalli values for an earthquake at any one place can vary depending on the earthquake’s magnitude, the distance from its epicenter, the focus of its energy, and the type of geologic material. The Modified Mercalli values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total), and intensities ranging from IV to X can cause moderate to significant structural damage. Because the Modified Mercalli scale is a measure of groundshaking effects, intensity values can be correlated to a range of average PGA values, as shown in Table 4.7-2, Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale. 1 A well-defined fault has a clearly trace detectable by a trained geologist as a physical feature at or just below the ground surface. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology TABLE 4.7-2 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE Intensity Value Average Peak Ground Accelerationa Intensity Description I Not felt II Felt by people sitting or on upper floors of buildings 0.0017 to 0.014 g III Felt by almost all indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks. May not be recognized as an earthquake. 0.0017 to 0.014 g IV Vibration felt like passing of heavy trucks. Stopped cars rock. Hanging objects swing. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. In the upper range of IV, wooden walls and frames creak. 0.014 to 0.039 g Felt outdoors. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed, some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset. Doors swing. Pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop. 0.035 to 0.092 g VI (Moderate) Felt by all. People walk unsteadily. Many frightened. Windows crack. Dishes, glassware, knickknacks, and books fall off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster, adobe buildings, and some poorly built masonry buildings cracked. Trees and bushes shake visibly. 0.092 to 0.18 g VII (Strong) Difficult to stand or walk. Noticed by drivers of cars. Furniture broken. Damage to poorly built masonry buildings. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices, unbraced parapets and porches. Some cracks in better masonry buildings. Waves on ponds. 0.18 to 0.34 g VIII (Very Strong) Steering of cars affected. Extensive damage to unreinforced masonry buildings, including partial collapse. Fall of some masonry walls. Twisting, falling of chimneys and monuments. Wood-frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted; loose partition walls thrown out. Tree branches broken. 0.34 to 0.65 g IX (Violent) General panic. Damage to masonry buildings ranges from collapse to serious damage unless modern design. Wood-frame structures rack, and, if not bolted, shifted off foundations. Underground pipes broken. 0.65 to 1.24 g X (Very Violent) Poorly built structures destroyed with their foundations. Even some well-built wooden structures and bridges heavily damaged and needing replacement. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. > 1.24 g XI (Very Violent) Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. > 1.24 g XII (Very Violent) Damage nearly total. Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or destroyed. Large rock masses displaced. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level are distorted. Objects are thrown into the air. > 1.24 g V (Light) < 0.0017 g NOTE: a Value is expressed as a fraction of the acceleration due to gravity (g). Gravity (g) is 9.8 meters per second squared. 1.0 g of acceleration is a rate of increase in speed equivalent to a car traveling 328 feet from rest in 4.5 seconds. SOURCES: ABAG, 2016; CGS, 2002 Seismicity and Faults The Project area is in a seismically active region of California that contains both active (Holocene age within the last 11,000 years; the USGS uses 15,000 years) and potentially active (Quaternary age or within the last 1.6 million years) faults. Throughout the Project region, there is the potential for damage resulting from movement along any one of a number of the active faults, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology seismic shaking, and seismically induced ground failures (e.g., liquefaction). No active faults are known to cross any of the Project components (WGCEP, 2015b; URS, 2013). The nearest four active faults near the Project area are shown on Figure 4.7-1 and listed below on Table 4.7-3. TABLE 4.7-3 NEARBY ACTIVE FAULTS Fault or Fault Zonea,b Zayante-Vergeles Approximate Distancea Maximum Expected Earthquake Magnitude (M)b Percent Probability of M 6.7 or Greater Earthquake over the next 30 yearsc 4 miles northeast 7.9 0.08 Monterey Bay - Tularcitos 5.5 miles southwest 6.5 0.77 San Andreas 7.5 miles northwest 7.9 11.61 San Gregorio 9 miles southwest 7.2 3.94 NOTES AND SOURCES: a Distance to nearest Project component. b Nolan, 2009 c WGCEP, 2015b The San Andreas Fault Zone is the major structural feature in the region and forms a boundary between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates (CGS, 2002). The San Andreas Fault is a major northwest-trending, right-lateral, 2 strike-slip 3 fault zone. The fault zone extends for about 600 miles from the Gulf of California in the south to Cape Mendocino in the north. The San Andreas is not a single fault trace but rather a system of active faults that diverges from the main fault south of the City of San Jose, California. The San Andreas Fault Zone has produced numerous large earthquakes, including the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. That event had an estimated ML 8.3 or Mw 7.8 (WGCEP 2008a, 2008b) and was associated with up to 21 feet of displacement and widespread ground failure (Lawson, 1908). The faults listed in Table 4.7-3 are all associated with the San Andreas Fault System, all trend northwest to southeast, and all designated as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (refer to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act discussed in the Regulatory Framework further below). The overall movement of the fault zones consist of right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Each fault zone is not a single trace, but contains numerous splays and en-echelon segments. The Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), comprised of the USGS, the CGS, and the Southern California Earthquake Center, evaluates the probability of one or more earthquakes of Mw 6.7 or higher occurring in the state of California over the next 30 years. It is estimated that the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole, including all of Monterey Bay area, has a 72 percent chance of experiencing an earthquake of Mw 6.7 or higher over the next 30 years (WGCEP, 2015a). 2 3 To an observer straddling a right-lateral fault, the right-hand block or plate would move towards the observer. A strike-slip fault creates vertical (or nearly vertical) fractures (i.e., the blocks primarily move horizontally). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Sa Sa nt n A aC n r u dr e z M as ou fau Za ya nt lt ain zo nte -V s s ne erg ec , ele tio sf n au lt z on e( Ve rg ele sf au lt) Monterey Ave Headquarters-West Annex Site Chanticleer Site _ ^ Santa Cruz WWTF M e, zon ault tion io f gor rio sec Gre o San n Greg Sa on Twin Lakes Church _ ^ te re y M Ba on y te -Tu re la y Ba rcit y os se f a ct ul io t z n _# ^ Willowbrook Lane Cabrillo # College ## # North Cabrillo College South _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) # Recharge Well (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) on e, Faults Quaternary 0 2 Holocene Historic Miles SOURCE: USGS, 2010 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.7-1 Regional Fault Map 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology Potential Seismic Hazards The Project area could be affected by a major earthquake along seismically active or potentially active fault lineaments during the Project life. Seismically induced hazards include ground shaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading, landslides, and settlement. Ground Shaking The amplitude and frequency of ground shaking is related to the size of an earthquake, the distance from the causative fault, the type of fault (e.g., strike-slip), and the response of the geologic materials at the site. Ground shaking can be described in terms of acceleration, velocity, and displacement of the ground. As a rule, the greater the earthquake magnitude and the closer the fault rupture to a site, the greater the intensity of ground shaking. Larger structures with foundations can be susceptible to damage due to the primary (i.e., shaking) and secondary (e.g., liquefaction, as discussed further below) effect of seismic shaking. While not entirely immune to some damage, recharge wells and pipelines are less susceptible to damage from seismic shaking due to the smaller size (well heads) and built-in flexibility (pipelines). The ground shaking hazard at the Project sites with foundations estimated using the CGS Ground Motion Interpolator are listed below in Table 4.7-4 (CGS, 2008a). Based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (refer to Table 4.7-2), these PGAs would result in Intensity Value ranging from very strong (VIII) to violent (IX) shaking. The level of seismic shaking at the proposed well sites would be similar. TABLE 4.7-4 ESTIMATED SEISMIC GROUND MOTIONS SC WWTP Chanticleer Site HeadquartersWest Annex Site Recharge Well Sites 10% probability of Exceedance in 50 years 0.687 0.717 0.737 0.737 – 0.756 2% probability of Exceedance in 50 years 0.426 0.444 0.454 0.454 – 0.463 Probability in Percent g SOURCE: CGS, 2008a Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading Liquefaction is the rapid loss of shear strength experienced in saturated, predominantly loose granular soils below the groundwater level during strong earthquake ground shaking and occurs due to an increase in pore water pressure (VT, 2013). Liquefaction-induced lateral spreading is defined as the finite, lateral displacement of gently sloping ground as a result of pore-pressure buildup or liquefaction in a shallow underlying deposit during an earthquake. The occurrence of this phenomenon is dependent on many complex factors, including the intensity and duration of ground shaking, particle-size distribution, and density of the soil. The potential damaging effects of liquefaction include differential settlement, loss of ground support for foundations, ground cracking, heaving and cracking of structure slabs due to sand boiling, and buckling of deep foundations due to ground settlement. Dynamic settlement (i.e., pronounced consolidation and settlement from seismic shaking) may also occur in loose, dry sands above the water table, resulting in settlement of and possible damage to overlying structures. In general, a relatively high potential for liquefaction exists in loose, sandy soils that Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology are within 50 feet of the ground surface and are saturated (below the groundwater table). Lateral spreading can move blocks of soil, placing strain on buried pipelines that can lead to leaks or pipe failure. Areas susceptible to liquefaction are shown on Figure 4.7-2. Because of the larger footprint of foundations, buildings are more susceptible to liquefaction damage. The smaller footprint of well heads, the overall depth of recharge from wells (more than 50 feet), and the shallow flexible nature of conveyance pipelines results in a lower susceptibility to potential damage from liquefaction. A USGS study indicated that the SC WWTF site is in an area with a high potential for liquefaction (Dupre, 1975). The proposed Chanticleer and Headquarters-West Annex sites are in areas with a low potential for liquefaction. Although less susceptible to liquefaction damage, some sections of conveyance pipelines do cross drainages with a moderate to high potential for liquefaction, as listed below: • Alignment across the San Lorenzo River along Laurel Street to Broadway as far east as just past Ocean Street • Alignment across the San Lorenzo River on 3rd Street and Campbell Street • Alignment across the Arana Gulch Creek drainage at the intersection of Soquel Avenue and Capitola Road • Alignment across Soquel Creek on Soquel Drive between Porter Street and Center Street Landslides Slope failures, commonly referred to as landslides, include many phenomena that involve the downslope displacement and movement of material, either triggered by static (i.e., gravity) or dynamic (i.e., earthquake) forces. Slope stability can depend on several complex variables, including the geology, structure, and the amount of groundwater present, as well as external processes such as climate, topography, slope geometry, and human activity. Landslides can occur on slopes of 15 percent or less, but the probability is greater on steeper slopes that exhibit old landslide features such as scarps, slanted vegetation, and transverse ridges. Landslides typically occur within slide-prone geologic units that contain excessive amounts of water or are on steep slopes, or where planes of weakness are parallel to the slope angle. The Project components are all on broad, flat to gently sloping alluvium and terrace deposits with no potential for landslides. Settlement Ground surface settlement can be accelerated and accentuated by earthquakes. During an earthquake, settlement can occur as a result of the relatively rapid compaction and settling of surface materials—particularly loose, non-compacted and variable sandy sediments—due to the rearrangement of soil particles during prolonged ground shaking. The Project components would be predominantly in fill or disturbed alluvial or terrace deposits with uncertain levels of compaction. Such materials may be susceptible to differential settlement. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Å Ä 1 Chanticleer Site _ ^ Soquel _ ^ Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Liquefaction.mxd, wsm 4/5/2018 Cabrillo College North Headquarters-West Annex Site Santa Cruz Monterey Ave Willowbrook Lane # # Twin Lakes Church Capitola Å Ä 1 Aptos ### Cabrillo College South Live Oak _ ^ Project Components Santa Cruz WWTF # Recharge Well (Options) _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Liquefaction Susceptibility Very High 0 1 High Moderate Miles Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; Santa Cruz County, 2017 Figure 4.7-2 Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Project Vicinity 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology Subsidence Subsidence is the gradual lowering of the land surface due to compaction of underlying materials. Subsidence can occur as a result of the extraction of groundwater and oil, which can cause subsurface clay layers to compress and lower the overlying land surface. The subsidence occurs because the presence of water in the pore spaces in between grains helps to support the skeletal structure of the geologic unit. If the water is removed, the structure becomes weaker and can subside. In the case of this Project, water would first be stored in groundwater aquifers using recharge wells, and then recovered later through existing groundwater production wells, as needed. The volume of water extracted would not exceed the volume of water stored. Therefore, subsurface geologic units that are currently saturated with water would not be expected to become unsaturated. Paleontological Resources Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains or impressions of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones; mammals, birds, fish, etc.), invertebrates (animals without backbones; starfish, clams, coral, etc.), and microscopic plants and animals (microfossils). They are valuable, non-renewable, scientific resources used to document the existence of extinct life forms and to reconstruct the environments in which they lived. Fossils can be used to determine the relative ages of the depositional layers in which they occur and of the geologic events that created those deposits. The age, abundance, and distribution of fossils depend on the geologic formation in which they occur and the topography of the area in which they are exposed. The geologic environments within which the plants or animals became fossilized usually were quite different from the present environments in which the geologic formations now exist. As previously discussed, the Project area is underlain by Quaternary alluvium and terrace deposits that are less than 1.6 million years old and imported fill materials. The Project area is in a highly developed urban area with fill and disturbed native materials. The fill materials would not contain paleontological resources. Paleontological resources, if there were any, in the disturbed native materials would have been destroyed as a result of the urban construction activities. 4.7.3 Regulatory Framework Federal and State Regulations Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972 to protect structures for human occupancy from the hazard of surface faulting. In accordance with the Act, the State Geologist has established regulatory zones—called earthquake fault zones—around the surface traces of active faults, and has published maps showing these zones. Buildings for human occupancy cannot be constructed across surface traces of faults that are determined to be active. Because many active faults are complex and consist of more than one branch that may experience ground surface rupture, earthquake fault zones extend approximately 200 to 500 feet on either side of the mapped fault trace. Although a number of faults in the regional area are known to be Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology active, as discussed above in the Environmental Setting, no faults mapped by the state as being within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone pass beneath Project components. Therefore, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act does not apply to the Project. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act was passed in 1990 following the Loma Prieta earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property damage caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic hazard zones, and cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain development projects within these zones. For projects that would locate structures for human occupancy within designated Zones of Required Investigation, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires project applicants to perform a site-specific geotechnical investigation to identify the potential sitespecific seismic hazards and corrective measures, as appropriate, prior to receiving building permits. The CGS Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards (Special Publication 117A) provides guidance for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards (CGS, 2008b). The CGS is in the process of producing official maps based on USGS topographic quadrangles, as required by the Act. To date, the CGS has not completed delineations for any of the USGS quadrangles in which Project components are proposed, and does not have a schedule for conducting such delineations. California Building Code The California Building Code (CBC), which is codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, Part 2, was promulgated to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare by establishing minimum standards related to structural strength, means of egress to facilities (entering and exiting), and general stability of buildings. The purpose of the CBC is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction. Title 24 is administered by the California Building Standards Commission, which, by law, is responsible for coordinating all building standards. Under State law, all building standards must be centralized in Title 24 or they are not enforceable. The provisions of the CBC apply to the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures throughout California. The 2016 edition of the CBC is based on the 2015 International Building Code (IBC) published by the International Code Council, which replaced the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The code is updated triennially, and the 2016 edition of the CBC was published by the California Building Standards Commission on July 1, 2016, and took effect starting January 1, 2017. The 2016 CBC contains California amendments based on the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Minimum Design Standard ASCE/SEI 7-16, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, provides requirements for general structural design and includes means for determining earthquake loads, as well as other loads (such as wind loads) for inclusion into building codes. Seismic design provisions of the building code generally prescribe minimum lateral forces applied statically to the structure, combined with the gravity forces of the dead and live loads of the structure, which the structure then must be designed to withstand. The prescribed Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology lateral forces are generally smaller than the actual peak forces that would be associated with a major earthquake. Consequently, structures should be able to (1) resist minor earthquakes without damage; (2) resist moderate earthquakes without structural damage but with some non-structural damage; and (3) resist major earthquakes without collapse, but with some structural as well as non-structural damage. Conformance to the current building code recommendations does not constitute any kind of guarantee that significant structural damage would not occur in the event of a maximum magnitude earthquake; however, it is reasonable to expect that a structure designed in accordance with the seismic requirements of the CBC should not collapse in a major earthquake. The earthquake design requirements take into account the occupancy category of the structure, site class, soil classifications, and various seismic coefficients, all of which are used to determine a seismic design category (SDC) for a project. The SDC is a classification system that combines the occupancy categories with the level of expected ground motions at the site; SDC ranges from A (very small seismic vulnerability) to E/F (very high seismic vulnerability and near a major fault). Seismic design specifications are determined according to the SDC in accordance with CBC Chapter 16. CBC Chapter 18 covers the requirements of geotechnical investigations (Section 1803), excavation, grading, and fills (Section 1804), load-bearing of soils (Section 1806), as well as foundations (Section 1808), shallow foundations (Section 1809), and deep foundations (Section 1810). For Seismic Design Categories D, E, and F, Chapter 18 requires analysis of slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture attributable to faulting or lateral spreading, plus an evaluation of lateral pressures on basement and retaining walls, liquefaction and soil strength loss, and lateral movement or reduction in foundation soil-bearing capacity. It also addresses measures to be considered in structural design, which may include ground stabilization, selecting appropriate foundation type and depths, selecting appropriate structural systems to accommodate anticipated displacements, or any combination of these measures. The potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss must be evaluated for site-specific peak ground acceleration magnitudes and source characteristics consistent with the design earthquake ground motions. Requirements for geotechnical investigations are included in Appendix J, CBC Section J104, Engineered Grading Requirements. As outlined in Section J104, applications for a grading permit are required to be accompanied by plans, specifications, and supporting data consisting of a soils engineering report and engineering geology report. Additional requirements for subdivisions requiring tentative and final maps and for other specified types of structures are in California Health and Safety Code Sections 17953 to 17955 and in 2013 CBC Section 1802. Testing of samples from subsurface investigations is required, such as from borings or test pits. Studies must be done as needed to evaluate slope stability, soil strength, position and adequacy of load-bearing soils, the effect of moisture variation on load-bearing capacity, compressibility, liquefaction, differential settlement, and expansiveness. The design of the proposed action is required to comply with CBC requirements, which would make the proposed action consistent with the CBC. NPDES Construction General Permit The Project would be subject to the State of California Construction General Permit, adopted on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology 0006-DWQ) (General Construction NPDES Permit or CGP). Refer to Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, for a description of this regulation. NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit The Project would be subject to the State of California Municipal Stormwater Permit, which regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems (MS4s). Refer to Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, for a description of this regulation. Excavation Regulations Occupational safety standards exist in federal and state laws to minimize worker safety risks from both physical and chemical hazards in the workplace. In California, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) and the federal OSHA are the agencies responsible for ensuring worker safety in the workplace. The OSHA Excavation and Trenching standard (29 CFR 1926.650) covers requirements for excavation and trenching operations, which are among the most hazardous construction activities. OSHA requires that all excavations in which employees could potentially be exposed to cave-ins be protected by sloping or benching the sides of the excavation, supporting the sides of the excavation, or placing a shield between the side of the excavation and the work area. Cal/OSHA is the implementing agency for both state and federal OSHA standards. All contractors are required to comply with OSHA regulations, which would make the Project consistent with OSHA. California Code of Regulations Section 4216 requires that construction contractors report a project that involves excavation 48-hours prior to breaking ground. This program allows owners of buried installations to identify and mark the location of its facilities before any nearby excavation projects commence. Adherence to this law by contractors of projects reduces the potential of inadvertent pipeline and utility damage and leaks. All contractors are required to comply with California excavation notification requirements, which would make the Project consistent with California excavation notification requirements. California Public Resources Code for Paleontological Resources Several sections of the California Public Resources Code protect paleontological resources. Section 5097.5 prohibits “knowing and willful” excavation, removal, destruction, injury, and defacement of any paleontologic feature on public lands (lands under state, county, city, district, or public authority jurisdiction, or the jurisdiction of a public corporation), except where the agency with jurisdiction has granted permission. Section 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that occur as a result of development on public lands. The sections of the California Administrative Code pertaining to the California Department of Parks and Recreation afford protection to geological features and “paleontological materials” but grant the director of the State park system authority to issue permits for specific activities that may result in damage to such resources, if the activities are in the interest of the State park system and for State park purposes (California Administrative Code Sections 4307–4309; as cited in USFWS/CDFG, 2006). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology California Environmental Quality Act Statute and Paleontology Guidelines CEQA requires that public agencies identify the environmental consequences of their proposed projects and project approvals and as such, paleontological resources are afforded consideration under CEQA. Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations: 15000 et seq.) includes as one of the questions to be answered in the Environmental Checklist (Appendix G, Section V, Part c) the following: “Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?” PRC Section 5097.5 specifies that any unauthorized removal of paleontological remains is a misdemeanor. Other State requirements for paleontological resource management are in California Public Resources Code Chapter 1.7, Section 5097.5 through 5097.9 (Stats. 1965, c. 1136, p. 2792), Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites. This statute defines any unauthorized disturbance or removal of a fossil site or remains on public land as a misdemeanor and specifies that state agencies may undertake surveys, excavations, or other operations as necessary on State lands to preserve or record paleontological resources. CEQA documentation prepared for projects would be required to analyze paleontological resources as a condition of the CEQA process to disclose potential impacts. Local Regulations California Government Code Section 53091 exempts this Project from local zoning and building codes. However, the District intends to use the Santa Cruz County grading and erosion control standards as guidelines. County of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Program Conservation and Open Space Element Objective 6.3: Erosion. Policy 6.3.4: Erosion Control Plan Approval Required for Development. Require approval of an erosion control plan for all development, as specified in the Erosion Control ordinance. Vegetation removal shall be minimized and limited to that amount indicated on the approved development plans, but shall be consistent with fire safety requirements. Policy 6.3.8: On-Site Sediment Containment. Require containment of all sediment on the site during construction and require drainage improvements for the completed development that will provide runoff control, including on-site retention or detention where downstream drainage facilities have limited capacity. Runoff control systems or Best Management Practices shall be adequate to prevent any significant increase in site runoff over pre-existing volumes and velocities and to maximize on-site collection of non-point source pollutants. Erosion Control Ordinance Chapter 16.22 Erosion Control 16.22.040 General provisions No person shall cause or allow the continued existence of a condition on any site that is causing or is likely to cause accelerated erosion as determined by the Planning Director. Such a condition shall be controlled and/or prevented by the responsible person and the property owner by using appropriate measures outlined in subsequent sections of this Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology chapter. Additional measures shall be applied if necessary by the responsible person and the property owner. Specific additional measures may be required by the Planning Director. Property owners will be given a reasonable amount of time, as determined by the Planning Director, to control existing problems depending on the severity of the problem, and the extent of necessary control measures. Where feasible, erosion problems shall be controlled no later than the beginning of the next rainy season (October 15th). 16.22.060 Erosion Control Plan (A) Prior to issuance of a building permit, development permit or land division, an erosion control plan indicating proposed methods for the control of runoff, erosion, and sediment movement shall be submitted and approved. Erosion control plans may also be required by the Planning Director for other types of applications where erosion can reasonably be expected to occur. The erosion control plan may be incorporated into other required plans, provided it is identified as such. Erosion control plans shall include, as a minimum, the measures required under SCCC 16.22.070, 16.22.080, 16.22.090, and 16.22.100. Additional measures or modification of proposed measures may be required by the Planning Director prior to project approval. No grading or clearing may take place on the site prior to approval of an erosion control plan for that activity. Final certification of project completion may be delayed pending proper installation of measures identified in the approved erosion control plan. 4.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on Geology, Soils, and Paleontology if it would: • Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: – Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault – Strong seismic ground shaking – Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and lateral spreading – Landslides • Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse • Be located on expansive 4 soil creating substantial risks to life or property • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater 4 The CBC, based on the IBC and the now-defunct UBC, no longer includes a Table 18-1-B to analyze expansive soil. Instead, CBC Section 1803.5.3 describes the criteria for analyzing expansive soils. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature Approach to Analysis General Information for this assessment of impacts relative to geology, soils, and paleontological resources is based on a review of literature research (geologic, seismic, soils, and paleontological resources reports and maps), information from seismic and paleontological databases, and the General Plans for Santa Cruz County and the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola. This information was used to identify potential impacts on workers, the public, or the environment. The Project would be regulated by the various laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies summarized in the Regulatory Framework. Compliance by the Project with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in this analysis, and local and state agencies would be expected to continue to enforce applicable requirements to the extent that they do so now. As described in more detail below, the analysis of geologic, soils, and seismic impacts in this section takes into account that the District would incorporate into their facility designs the engineering recommendations provided by the geotechnical investigation that the CBC and local ordinances would require be conducted for the final design of the Project. The analysis also considers the various existing state and local regulations that apply to geotechnical design and construction, which include the CBC and local ordinances for building and grading. Through compliance with the existing ordinances, the District would be required to demonstrate that the Project design would be compatible with the local subsurface geology, soil, and seismic conditions; this must occur before building permits are issued. Additionally, the District would require its pipeline engineers and construction contractors to adhere to the American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards for pipeline design and construction; this analysis considers the use of AWWA standards in evaluating potential geologic and seismic impacts. Finally, the consideration of potential impacts associated with expansive soils is expanded to consider the effects of corrosive soils; which is an important consideration for below ground structures, such as those proposed. A significant impact would occur if, after considering the features described in the Project Description and the required compliance with regulatory requirements, a significant impact would still occur. For those impacts considered to be potentially significant, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the identified impacts. American Water Works Association Standards for Proposed Pipelines Pipelines are constructed to various industry standards. The AWWA is a worldwide non-profit scientific and educational association that, among its many activities, establishes recommended standards for the construction and operation of public water supply systems, including standards for pipe and water treatment facility materials and sizing, installation, and facility operations. While the AWWA’s recommended standards are not enforceable code requirements, they Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology nevertheless can dictate how pipelines for water conveyance are designed and constructed. The District has committed to requiring its contractors to incorporate AWWA Standards into the design and construction of the proposed pipelines. California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369) CEQA requires analysis of a project’s effects on the environment; consideration of the potential effects of a site’s environment on a project are outside the scope of required CEQA review (California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal. 4th 369). As stated in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 473: “[T]he purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the project.” The impacts discussed in this section related to increased exposure of people or structures to risks associated with seismic occurrences and location of people or structures on unstable geologic units are effects on users of the Project and structures in the Project of pre-existing environmental hazards, and therefore “do not relate to environmental impacts under CEQA and cannot support an argument that the effects of the environment on the project must be analyzed in an EIR.” (Id. at p. 474.) Nonetheless, an analysis of these impacts is provided for information purposes. Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists Guidelines In addition to the laws, regulations, and policies described in the regulatory framework, the standard practice in analyzing paleontological resources includes using guidance from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists (SVP). Although not a law or regulation in the legal sense, these guidelines have become the standard in the industry. The Conformable Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee of the SVP published Standard Guidelines in response to a recognized need to establish procedures for the investigation, collection, preservation, and cataloguing of fossil bearing sites. The Standard Guidelines are widely accepted among paleontologists, followed by most investigators, and identify the two key phases of paleontological resource protection: (1) assessment and (2) mitigation. Assessment involves identifying the potential for a project site or area to contain significant non-renewable paleontological resources that could be damaged or destroyed by project excavation or construction. Mitigation involves formulating and applying measures to reduce such adverse effects, including pre-project survey and salvage, monitoring and screen washing during excavation to salvage fossils, conservation and inventory, and final reports and specimen curation. The SVP defines the level of potential as one of four sensitivity categories for sedimentary rocks: high, undetermined, low, and no potential as listed below. • High Potential. Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some volcaniclastic formations (e.g., ashes or tephras), and some low grade metamorphic rocks, which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology (e.g., middle Holocene and older, fine grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate rich paleosols, cross bedded point bar sandstones, fine grained marine sandstones, etc.). Paleontological potential consists of both (a) the potential for yielding abundant or significant vertebrate fossils or for yielding a few significant fossils, large or small, vertebrate, invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils, and (b) the importance of recovered evidence for new and significant taxonomic, phylogenetic, paleoecologic, taphonomic, biochronologic, or stratigraphic data. Rock units which contain potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, 5 including deposits associated with animal nests or middens and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways are also classified as having high potential. • Undetermined Potential. Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to contain significant paleontological resources. A field survey by a qualified professional paleontologist to specifically determine the paleontological resource potential of these rock units is required before a paleontological resource impact mitigation program can be developed. In cases where no subsurface data are available, paleontological potential can sometimes be determined by strategically located excavations into subsurface stratigraphy. • Low Potential. Reports in the paleontological literature or field surveys by a qualified professional paleontologist may allow determination that some rock units have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections or, based on general scientific consensus, only preserve fossils in rare circumstances and the presence of fossils is the exception not the rule, e.g., basalt flows or Recent (i.e., Holocene) colluvium. Rock units with low potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils. • No Potential. This designation is assigned to geologic formations that are entirely plutonic (volcanic rocks formed beneath the earth’s surface) in origin and therefore have no potential for producing fossil remains. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Risk of loss, injury, or death involving fault rupture and landslides. The Project would not directly or indirectly cause or expose people or structures to injury, death, or damage from fault rupture because none of the components intersect any active faults, as determined by CGS mapping performed in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Project is not on landslide susceptible areas. Accordingly, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Located on a geologic unit or soils that are unstable or that would be unstable as a result of the Project, which could result in subsidence or collapse. Soils that are susceptible to subsidence or collapse are typically associated with projects that include the injection or 5 The Holocene is the latest interval of geologic time, covering approximately the last 11,700 years of the Earth’s history. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology extraction of groundwater and/or oil, or are in Karst terrain (carbonate rock terrains where dissolution cavities occur). As discussed in the Environmental Setting, subsidence is the gradual lowering of the land surface due to compaction of underlying materials. Subsidence can occur as a result of the extraction of groundwater and oil, which can cause subsurface clay layers to compress and lower the overlying land surface. The subsidence occurs because the presence of water in the pore spaces in between grains helps to support the skeletal structure of the geologic unit. If the water is removed, the structure becomes weaker and can subside. In the case of this Project, water would first be recharged into the subsurface groundwater basin for storage and then recovered later as needed. The volume of water extracted would not exceed the volume of water recharged. Therefore, there would never be a condition under which subsurface geologic units that are currently saturated with water would become unsaturated. In addition, the Project does not include fracking, where fluids would be injected into the subsurface under sufficient pressure to break rock units that could result in subsidence or collapse. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Result in substantial loss of topsoil. The entire Project footprint is in a disturbed urban area that does not have valuable topsoil in the sense of agricultural farmland soil. Therefore, there would be no impact relative to loss of topsoil. This significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Have soils incapable of adequately supporting use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. The Project would not use septic tanks or other on-site wastewater disposal systems; therefore, there would be no impact related to the adequacy of soils to support such systems. This significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Disposal of the brine using the ocean outfall is discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water. • Directly or indirectly destroy unique paleontological or unique geological resources. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, the Project is not in areas with paleontological resources. The fill and recent disturbed Holocene alluvium would not be considered a unique geological resource. Therefore, there would be no impact related to paleontological or unique geological resources. This significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.7-5. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.7-5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – GEOLOGY AND PALEONTOLOGY Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.7-1: The Project would not expose people or structures to substantial seismic shaking or seismically-induced ground failure, including liquefaction or lateral spreading. LS Impact 4.7-2: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion. LS Impact 4.7-3: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soil such that substantial risks could occur. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology Impact Discussion Impact 4.7-1: The Project would not expose people or structures to substantial seismic shaking or seismically-induced ground failure, including liquefaction or lateral spreading. (Less than Significant) As discussed above in Section 4.7.2, Environmental Setting, the region will likely experience a large regional earthquake within the operational life of the Project. There is a potential for strong to very strong intensity ground shaking at the Project site that would be associated with such an earthquake. The intensity of such an event would depend on the causative fault and the distance to the epicenter, the magnitude, the duration of shaking, and the nature of the geologic materials on which the Project components would be constructed. Intense ground shaking and high ground accelerations would affect the entire area around the proposed facilities, pipelines, and associated infrastructure. The primary and secondary effects of ground shaking could damage structural foundations, distort or break pipelines, and place people at risk of injury or death. Construction Construction activities would occur over approximately 36 months. Construction activities would not include actions that would exacerbate the exposure of people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving seismic hazards (e.g., hydraulic fracking). Therefore, impacts during construction relative to seismicity would be less than significant. Operation As discussed above in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Framework, the CBC would require that the structural elements of the Project would undergo appropriate design-level geotechnical evaluations prior to final design and construction. The geotechnical investigation would include any necessary recommendations for soils remediation and/or foundation systems necessary to reduce seismic-related hazards to less than significant. Implementing the regulatory requirements in the CBC, and ensuring that buildings and structures are constructed in compliance with the law is the responsibility of the Project engineers and building officials. The CBC describe required standards for the construction, alteration, movement, replacement, location, and demolition of buildings and structures throughout California. The standards include earthquake design requirements that determine the seismic design category and then describe the structural design requirements. The geotechnical engineer, as a registered professional with the State of California, is required to comply with the CBC while applying standard engineering practice and the appropriate standard of care for the particular region in California, which, in the case of the Project, would be the County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola. The California Professional Engineers Act (Building and Professions Code Sections 6700–6799), and the Codes of Professional Conduct, as administered by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, provides the basis for regulating and enforcing engineering practice in California. The local building officials are typically with the local jurisdiction (i.e., the County or cities) and are responsible for inspections and ensuring CBC and local code compliance prior to approval of the building permit. As discussed above, the geotechnical investigations would include recommendations to address geotechnical issues, including seismic shaking and seismically inducted ground failures, such as liquefaction and lateral spreading. With Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology compliance with the regulatory requirements and the implementation of geotechnical design recommendations, impacts relative to seismic shaking and seismically induced ground failure during operations would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.7-2: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion. (Less than Significant) Construction Construction of the Project would have the potential to result in soil erosion during excavation, grading, trenching, and soil stockpiling. Because the overall footprint of construction activities would exceed one acre, the Project would be required to comply with the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) (Construction General Permit), which is described above in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Framework. The state requirements were developed to ensure that stormwater is managed and erosion is controlled on construction sites. The Construction General Permit requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, which requires applications of BMPs to control run on and runoff from construction work sites. The BMPs would include, but would not be limited to, physical barriers to prevent erosion and sedimentation, construction of sedimentation basins, limitations on work periods during storm events, use of infiltration swales, protection of stockpiled materials, and a variety of other measures that would substantially reduce or prevent erosion from occurring during construction. With compliance with existing regulations, impacts associated with soil erosion during construction would be less than significant. Operation Once constructed, there would be no further ground disturbance and no potential for erosion. The Project would be constructed using BMPs that would provide erosion and sedimentation control measures to maintain the capacity of area storm drains and protect water quality in compliance with the regional MS4 permit. Therefore, impacts associated with soil erosion during operations would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.7-3: The Project would not be located on expansive or corrosive soil such that substantial risks could occur. (Less than Significant) Expansive and corrosive soils can damage structures and buried pipelines and can also increase required maintenance. Expansion and contraction of expansive soils in response to changes in moisture content can cause differential and cyclical movements that can result in damage and/or distress to structures and equipment. There would be no construction-related impacts relative to Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology expansive or corrosive soils; impacts would only occur under post-construction and operational conditions, as discussed below. As listed in Table 4.7-1, the foundations for the SC WWTF, Chanticleer Site, or HeadquartersWest Annex Site structures would be constructed in soils with a moderate potential for expansive soils and a moderate to high potential for damage to unprotected steel, which could result in damage to foundations and subsurface steel pipes. As a requirement of the CBC, the District would be required to prepare a final geotechnical investigation that would include site-specific recommendations to address potentially expansive and corrosive soils as a condition of permit approval. The site-specific analysis of site foundation soils guides the recommended building foundation design, such that damage from expansive and corrosive soils is minimized and reduced to levels that can be accommodated by the final design. The potential measures could include replacement of native soils with engineered fill, treatment of native soils, or addition of soil amendments which are effective means of reducing the risk from expansive soils. The shallow and flexible nature of pipelines makes them less susceptible to damage from expansive soils. Damage to structures and pipelines due to corrosion can be addressed by removal and replacement of corrosive soils, or by applying protective coatings to concrete and steel. The pipelines would be constructed using AWWA guidelines, which would include incorporating flexibility in the pipelines to accommodate minor movement and settling. The geotechnical investigation would also evaluate for corrosive soils and provide recommendations to protect pipes if they are metal such as protective coatings or encasement in cement, concrete, or carrier pipelines. Therefore, implementation of standard geotechnical engineering practices and adherence to building code requirements would reduce potential impacts from expansive and corrosive soils during operations to less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.7.5 References – Geology and Paleontology Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2016. Adapted from Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI), Available at resilience.abag.ca.gov/shaking/mmi/. Accessed on May 8, 2016. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2002, How Earthquakes and Their Effects Are Measured, Note 32. ———, 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps, Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007. ———, 2008a. PSHA Ground Motion Interpolator, 2008. ———, 2008b. Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A, October 7. County of Santa Cruz, 2015, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015-2020, September. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.7 Geology and Paleontology Dupre, W.R., 1975, Maps showing geology and liquefaction potential of Quaternary Deposits in Santa Cruz County, CA, U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-648. Lawson, Andrew C., The California Earthquake of April 18, 1906, Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, 1908. National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2017. Web Soil Survey, Pure Water Soquel, September 13. Nolan Associates, 2009, Geologic and Seismologic Discussion, April 20. URS, 2013, Proposed SCWD2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Section 5.7 Geology, May. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech [VT]), 2013. LiquefactionInduced Lateral Spreading. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2008a. Forecasting California’s earthquakes; what can we expect in the next 30 years?: U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 2008-3027.w ———, 2008b. The Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast, Version 2 (UCERF 2): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2007-1437 and California Geological Survey Special Report 203. Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities, 2015a. UCERF3: A new earthquake forecast for California’s complex fault system: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2015– 3009, March. ———, 2015b. The Third California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), Output from GoogleEarth file with fault probabilities. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.7-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 4.8.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Project to result in adverse impacts associated with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The analysis is based on review of available reports, plans, and guidance prepared by agencies such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). Comments received during Project scoping relative to GHG emissions generally concern the Project’s impacts related to climate change. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.8.2 Environmental Setting Climate Change According to the USEPA, the term “climate change” refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (over several decades or longer). There is scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that human activity contributes to that change. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are often called greenhouse gases (GHGs). Emissions of GHGs, if not sufficiently curtailed, are likely to contribute further to increases in global temperatures. The potential effects of climate change in California include sea level rise and reductions in snowpack, as well as an increased number of extreme-heat days per year, high ozone days, large forest fires, and drought years (CARB, 2014). Globally, climate change could affect numerous environmental resources through potential, though uncertain, changes in future air temperatures and precipitation patterns. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the observed and/or projected effects of climate change vary regionally, but include the following direct effects (IPCC, 2014): • Changing precipitation and snow melt patterns; • Negative effect on crop yield; • Increased heat waves, drought, flood, wildfires, and storm events; • Reduced renewable water resources in most dry subtropical regions; and • Ocean acidification damage to marine ecosystems. In addition, many secondary effects are projected to result from climate change, including a global rise in sea level, ocean acidification, impacts on agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. The possible outcomes and feedback mechanisms involved are not fully understood, and much research remains to be done; however, over the long term, the potential exists for substantial environmental, social, and economic consequences. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions that result from human activities primarily include carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), with much smaller amounts of nitrous oxide (N 2 O), methane (CH 4 , often from unburned natural gas), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) from high-voltage power equipment, and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) from refrigeration/chiller equipment. Because these GHGs have different warming potentials (i.e., the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere by a certain mass of the gas), and CO 2 is the most common reference gas for climate change, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 e) emissions. For example, while SF 6 represents a small fraction of the total annual GHGs emitted worldwide, this gas is very potent, with 22,800 times the global warming potential of CO 2 . Therefore, an emission of 1 metric ton of SF 6 would be reported as 22,800 metric tons CO 2 e. The global warming potential of CH 4 and N 2 O are 25 times and 298 times that of CO 2 , respectively (CARB, 2017a). The principal GHGs resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are described below. Carbon Dioxide CO 2 is a naturally occurring gas that enters the atmosphere through natural as well as anthropogenic (human) sources. Key anthropogenic sources include the burning of fossil fuels (e.g., oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees, wood products, and other biomass, as well as industrially relevant chemical reactions such as those associated with manufacturing cement. CO 2 is removed from the atmosphere when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. Methane Like CO 2 , CH 4 is emitted from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Key anthropogenic sources of CH 4 include gaseous emissions from landfills, releases associated with mining and materials extraction industries (in particular coal mining), and fugitive releases associated with the extraction and transport of natural gas and crude oil. CH 4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices. Small quantities of CH 4 are released during fossil fuel combustion. Nitrous Oxide N 2 O is also emitted from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Important anthropogenic sources include industrial activities, agricultural activities (primarily the application of nitrogen fertilizer), the use of explosives, combustion of fossil fuels, and decay of solid waste. Fluorinated Gases HFCs, PFCs, and SF 6 are synthetic gases emitted from a variety of industrial processes, and they contribute substantially more to the greenhouse effect on a pound for pound basis than the GHGs described previously. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in small quantities, but because of their potency they are sometimes referred to as “high global warming potential gases.” Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Greenhouse Gas Sources Anthropogenic GHG emissions in the United States are derived mostly from the combustion of fossil fuels for transportation and power production. Energy-related CO 2 emissions resulting from fossil fuel exploration and use, account for approximately three-quarters of the human-generated GHG emissions in the United States, primarily in the form of CO 2 emissions from burning fossil fuels. More than half of the energy-related emissions come from large stationary sources, such as power plants; over one-quarter derive from transportation; and a majority of the remaining sources include: industrial and agricultural activities, and commercial and residential sources (USEPA, 2017a). Statewide emissions of GHG from relevant source categories for 2009 through 2015 are summarized in Table 4.8-1. Specific contributions from individual air basins, such as the North Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which encompasses the Project area, are included in the emissions inventory but are not itemized by air basin. In 2015, California produced 440 million gross metric tons of CO 2 e emissions. Transportation was the source of 39 percent of the state’s GHG emissions, followed by industrial at 23 percent, electricity generation at 19 percent, commercial and residential sources at 11 percent, and agriculture and forestry comprised the remaining 8 percent (CARB, 2017b). TABLE 4.8-1 CALIFORNIA GHG EMISSIONS (MILLION METRIC TONS CO 2 E) Emission Inventory Category 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Electricity Generation (In State) 53.51 46.91 41.36 51.18 49.60 51.81 50.21 11.4% Electricity Generation (Imports) 48.13 43.67 46.94 44.15 40.24 36.56 33.88 7.7% Transportation 171.45 168.11 164.70 164.38 163.05 164.89 169.38 38.5% Industrial 97.31 101.12 101.08 101.46 104.27 104.69 102.97 23.4% Commercial 18.64 20.09 20.73 21.11 21.64 21.37 22.17 5.0% Residential 30.21 31.26 32.03 30.04 31.19 26.26 26.93 6.1% Agriculture and Forestry 33.83 34.64 35.28 36.42 34.93 36.03 34.65 7.9% Not Specified (Solvents & Chemicals) 0.26 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.17 <0.1% 453.34 446.06 442.38 448.97 445.08 441.85 440.36 100.00% Total Gross Emissions 2015 SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, 2017a, 2017b. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2015 – by Sector and Activity, last updated June 6, 2017. 4.8.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Clean Air Act On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. USEPA (549 US 497), the U.S. Supreme Court found that GHGs are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. The Court held that the USEPA must determine whether emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making such decisions, the USEPA is required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, which obligates it to prescribe (and from time to time revise) standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. The Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under Section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy and other organizations. On April 17, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed proposed “endangerment” and “cause or contribute” findings for GHGs under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. The USEPA found that six GHGs, taken in combination, endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The USEPA also found that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse effect as air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under Clean Air Act Section 202(a). Pursuant to 40 CFR Part 52, Proposed Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, USEPA has mandated that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V requirements apply to facilities whose stationary source CO 2 e emissions exceed 100,000 tons per year (USEPA, 2017b). The Project would not trigger PSD or Title V permitting under this regulation because it would generate substantially less than 100,000 tons of CO 2 e emissions per year. U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. USEPA On June 23, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court held that USEPA may not treat GHG emissions as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD or Title V permit. The Court also held that PSD permits that are otherwise required (based on emissions of other pollutants) may continue to require limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT). In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the D.C. Circuit issued an amended judgment in Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which vacated the PSD and Title V regulations under review in that case to the extent that they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD or Title V permit solely because the source emits or has the potential to emit GHGs above the applicable major source thresholds. The D.C. Circuit also directed USEPA to consider whether any further revisions to its regulations are appropriate, and if so, to undertake to make such revisions. In response to the Supreme Court decision and the D.C. Circuit’s amended judgment, the USEPA intends to conduct future rulemaking action to make appropriate revisions to the PSD and operating permit rules (USEPA, 2017b). State A variety of statewide rules and regulations mandate the quantification and, if emissions exceed established thresholds, the reduction of GHGs. CEQA requires lead agencies to evaluate projectrelated GHG emissions and the potential for projects to contribute to climate change and to provide appropriate mitigation in cases where the lead agency determines that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs to the atmosphere. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Executive Order S-3-05 Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006, and establishes statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050 as follows: 1. By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; 2. By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and 3. By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. This executive order establishes GHG emissions goals only and does not include any specific requirements that pertain to the Project; however, future actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the Project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed. Assembly Bill 32 California Assembly Bill (AB) 32, 1 the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, is the cornerstone of state efforts to reduce GHG emissions. As described below, the law requires CARB to establish a statewide GHG emissions cap for 2020 based on 1990 emission levels, develop a mandatory reporting program of GHG emissions, adopt regulations for discrete early actions to reduce GHG emissions, prepare a scoping plan to identify how emissions reductions will be achieved, and adopt a regulation that establishes a market-based compliance mechanism (also referred to as “Cap and Trade”). Statewide GHG Emissions Cap In 2007, CARB established the statewide GHG emissions limit that must be achieved by 2020, equivalent to the statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, at 427 million metric tons of CO 2 e. This figure is approximately 30 percent below projected “business-as-usual” emissions of 596 million metric tons of CO 2 e for 2020, and about 10 percent below average annual GHG emissions during the period of 2002 through 2004 (CARB, 2009). Climate Change Scoping Plan In December 2008, CARB approved the AB 32 Scoping Plan outlining the state’s strategy to achieve the 2020 GHG emissions limit (CARB, 2009). The Scoping Plan estimated a reduction of 174 million metric tons CO 2 e from the transportation, energy, agriculture, forestry, and high climate-change-potential sectors, and proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify California’s energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. The Scoping Plan must be updated every five years to evaluate the mix of AB 32 policies to ensure that California is on track to achieve the 2020 GHG reduction goal. CARB adopted the latest update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan in December 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) is guided by the Executive Order B-3015 GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (see below). The actions 1 AB 32 is codified in California Health and Safety Code Division 25.5, Sections 38500 et seq. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions identified in the 2017 Scoping Plan are designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California and deliver policy signals that will continue to drive investment and certainty in a low carbon economy. The 2017 Scoping Plan builds upon the successful framework established by the initial Scoping Plan and the First Update, while identifying new technologically feasible and costeffective strategies to ensure that California meets its GHG reduction targets in a way that promotes and rewards innovation, continues to foster economic growth, and delivers improvements to the environment and public health, including in disadvantaged communities. The 2017 Scoping Plan includes policies to require direct GHG reductions at some of the State’s largest stationary sources and mobile sources. These policies include the use of lower GHGemitting fuels, efficiency regulations, and the Cap-and-Trade Program, which constrains and reduces emissions at covered sources (CARB, 2017c). Senate Bill 97 In 2007, the California State Legislature passed Senate Bill (SB) 97, which required amendment of the CEQA Guidelines to incorporate analysis of, and mitigation for, GHG emissions from projects subject to CEQA. The amendments took effect March 18, 2010. The amendments add Section 15064.4 to the CEQA Guidelines, specifically addressing the potential significance of GHG emissions. Section 15064.4 neither requires nor recommends a specific analytical methodology or quantitative criteria for determining the significance of GHG emissions. Rather, the section calls for a “good faith effort” to “describe, calculate or estimate” GHG emissions and indicates that the analysis of the significance of any GHG impacts should include consideration of the extent to which the project would: • Increase or reduce GHG emissions; • Exceed a locally applicable threshold of significance; or • Comply with “regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions.” The CEQA Guidelines also state that a project may be found to have a less-than-significant impact related to GHG emissions if it complies with an adopted plan that includes specific measures to sufficiently reduce GHG emissions (Section 15064(h)(3)). Executive Order B-30-15 In April 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Reaching this emission reduction target will help make it possible for California to reach its ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050, as identified in Executive Order S-3-05. In 2016, the Legislature passed SB 32, which codifies a 2030 GHG emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels. Executive Order B-30-15 also specifically addresses the need for climate adaptation and directs state government to: • Incorporate climate change impacts into the State's 5-Year Infrastructure Plan; Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Update the Safeguarding California Plan, the state climate adaption strategy to identify how climate change will affect California infrastructure and industry and what actions the state can take to reduce the risks posed by climate change; • Factor climate change into state agencies' planning and investment decisions; and • Implement measures under existing agency and departmental authority to reduce GHG emissions (Office of the Governor, 2015). Executive Order B-30-15 required CARB to update the AB 32 Climate Change Scoping Plan to incorporate the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan serves as the framework to define the State’s climate change priorities for the next 15 years and beyond (see above). Local Regulations and Plans County of Santa Cruz Climate Action Strategy The Climate Action Strategy (CAS) has two main components. The first component reports the results of the GHG emissions inventory for Santa Cruz County, proposes targets for GHG reductions, and outlines strategies and implementing actions to achieve the targets. The second portion focuses on vulnerability assessment and strategies for adapting to the types of impacts that are likely to occur in Santa Cruz County. The CAS incorporates input from the local community and non-governmental agencies that are working to mitigate and respond to climate change. GHG reduction strategies are proposed for the three sectors with the highest emissions, including transportation, energy, and solid waste (County of Santa Cruz, 2013). As the Project is water related, the CAS proposed reduction strategies do not appear to be directly applicable to the Project. City of Santa Cruz Climate Action Plan This Climate Action Plan outlines the actions the City and its partners may take to meet State land use requirements pertaining to climate change, achieve the policies identified in the General Plan 2030, and accomplish the GHG reduction goals set by City Council. It is comprised of nine chapters. The first two chapters describe global climate change issues and Santa Cruz’s 2008 GHG Inventory. The 2008 Inventory also quantifies the Baseline Emissions Inventory and sets the goals for 2020 and 2050. Chapter 3 outlines how the Climate Action Plan was developed and describes the numerous local partners that are helping to implement the actions. Chapters 4 through 8 describe measures and actions for various emissions sectors (building energy use, transportation, waste and water) as well as programs to expand renewable energy use and sustainable living practices throughout the community. Chapter 9 describes how the Climate Action Plan will be implemented. Although the Water Conservation and Solid Waste Management chapter includes Measure 1: Implement an updated City Water Conservation Plan to maximize water use efficiency (City of Santa Cruz, 2012), it does not appear that the proposed actions identified in the Climate Action Plan would be directly applicable to the Project. City of Capitola Climate Action Plan The City Council adopted Capitola's first Climate Action Plan on October 22, 2015. The CAP identifies strategies and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from City government operations and community activities to support the State of California’s efforts to Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions mitigate the effects of climate change. The Climate Action Plan fulfills several General Plan goals and brings the City into conformance with Assembly Bill 32, Senate Bill 375, and Executive Order S-3-05. The Climate Action Plan includes an inventory of existing GHG emissions, a forecast of future GHG emissions, identification of GHG reduction targets, and a list of GHG reduction measures necessary to achieve identified reduction targets. The Climate Action Plan establishes a 4.9 percent GHG reduction target from 2010 levels by 2020 and projects an 18 percent reduction through implementation of various reduction strategies. The plan further sets a 42.9 percent reduction target from 2010 levels by 2035 and an 81 percent reduction by 2050. The Climate Action Plan includes actions and strategies to reduce GHG emissions generated by transportation and mobile sources, residential and non-residential energy consumption, water and wastewater treatment and conveyance, solid waste generation, and open space, parks, and agriculture. Climate Action Plan Measure WW-1, Water Conservation, calls for the City to support interior and exterior water efficiency and conservation in new and existing buildings and uses (City of Capitola, 2015). The Climate Action Plan measures do not appear to be directly applicable to the Project. 4.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact related to GHG emissions if it would: • Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment; or • Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The GHG analysis in this EIR relies on guidance provided by staff of the local air district, Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), related to the use of a significance threshold. In February 2016, the MBARD (then known as the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District) adopted a significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons for stationary source projects (MBUAPCD, 2016). This significance threshold is not appropriate for the Project because the Project would include no new stationary sources of GHG emissions. As of May 2018, the MBARD Board of Directors has not adopted any GHG thresholds for land use projects or nonstationary source projects. However, for such projects the MBARD recommends that lead agencies use either the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) GHG significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year (BAAQMD, 2017) or the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD) GHG significance threshold of 1,150 CO 2 e per year (SLOCAPCD, 2012 and MBARD, 2018). Since the BAAQMD’s significance threshold is slightly lower than the SLOCAPCD significance threshold, and for the reasons set forth below, this EIR uses the BAAQMD significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year to evaluate whether the Project’s emissions could have a significant impact on the environment. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Use of this threshold results in approximately 59 percent of all non-stationary source projects subject to CEQA review in the Bay Area being above the significance threshold and having to implement feasible mitigation measures to meet their CEQA obligations. These projects account for approximately 92 percent of all GHG emissions anticipated to occur between now and 2020 from new land use development in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 2017). If all land use-project emissions are mitigated to below this threshold, it would represent an overall reduction in new land use project-related emissions of up to 92 percent. It is acknowledged that this significance threshold was developed to focus on emissions reductions by 2020, and that BAAQMD, MBARD, and CARB have not yet provided guidance or recommendations for significance thresholds to evaluate consistency with emissions reduction goals for years beyond 2020. However, since the Executive Order B-30-15 emissions reductions goal of lowering GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 is roughly equivalent to reducing emissions by 42 percent below current levels and the Executive Order S-3-05 emissions reductions goal of lowering GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 is roughly equivalent to reducing emissions by 81 percent below current levels, the 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year threshold can be used as a rough gauge to determine if the Project would be consistent with these post-2020 goals. Neither the MBARD or BAAQMD staff have identified a specific significance threshold for short-term construction-related GHG emissions. Therefore, GHG emissions from Project construction activities are evaluated based on guidance developed by the SLOCAPCD. For construction-related GHGs, SLOCAPCD recommends that total emissions from construction be amortized over a period equal to the estimated life of the Project (in this case 50 years) and added to operational emissions, and then compared to the operational significance threshold (SLOCAPCD, 2012). Approach to Analysis The following discussions provide an overview of the approach to analysis for GHG emissions impacts. The assumptions used to estimate construction and operational GHG emissions are provided in Appendix B, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates. Construction Emissions Off-road equipment vehicle trip emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2016.3.2 (CalEEMod v2016.3.2) with assumptions for construction equipment inventories and use rates, haul truck and vehicle trips, and the construction schedule developed by the District’s engineering consultant for this EIR analysis. For the environmental impact evaluation, the most conservative scenario is analyzed, which is assumes that the Project would include development of a tertiary treatment system and pump station at the SC WWTF; an AWPF at the Chanticleer Site; recharge and monitoring wells at three Recharge Well sites; and approximately 11 miles of conveyance pipeline. The Chanticleer Site is considered most conservative from a GHG emissions perspective because it would require substantially more truck trips for debris off-haul and disposal relative to the other site options. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions It is assumed that each piece of equipment associated with construction activities at each of the Project sites would operate for 1 to 8 hours per day, depending on the equipment type and activity. An exception would be drill rigs, which would be required to excavate 24 hours per day for up to two weeks per recharge well sites and 12 hours per day for up to three weeks for the monitoring wells. The equipment hours were multiplied by the required amount of workdays for each equipment type for the total hours of operation for each piece of equipment. The total hours operated for each equipment type were then divided by the total construction workdays for each Project component for the average equipment hours for each of the Project components that were used for CalEEMod input. The average daily trip rates for each Project component would include approximately 40 one-way worker auto trips per day and approximately 150 one-way haul truck trips per day (see Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional detail). CalEEMod default trip lengths of 10.8 miles and 20.0 miles for worker trips and haul truck trips, respectively, were used to estimate the on-road vehicle emissions. Consistent with the SLOCAPCD’s recommended approach for construction emissions, this analysis amortizes the Project’s construction emissions over a 50-year Project lifetime, adds them to the Project’s estimated annual operational emissions, and then compares the total combined emissions to the 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year significance threshold. Operational Emissions Electricity Use Indirect Emissions The Project would receive electricity from MBCP, a new (since Spring 2018), locally-controlled public agency that provides increased levels of carbon-free electricity to residents and businesses in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties. The indirect emissions associated with the Project’s electricity use was estimated using an emission factor for a conservative scenario of the expected energy portfolio for MBCP’s third year of operation (i.e., 0.104 metric tons CO 2 per MWh; PEA, 2016), which would be approximately the first year (i.e., 2021) some of the Project components may become operational. This emission factor is approximately 25 percent less than PG&E’s annual emission factor for that year (PEA, 2016). N 2 O and CH 4 emission factors for electricity use were obtained from The Climate Registry (TCR, 2017). The net increase in electrical power demand that would be associated with operation of the Project would be approximately 1,800 megawatt hours (MWh) for pumping and 1,800 MWh to operate the AWPF, for a total of 3,600 MWh per year. GHG emissions were estimated for CO 2, N 2 O, and CH 4 . The total CO 2 e associated with Project power demand was calculated by multiplying the N 2 O and CH 4 emissions by their respective global warming potential, and then those values were added to the CO 2 emissions. Vehicle Exhaust Emissions GHG emissions would also be generated from Project-related vehicle travel during operations and maintenance. GHG emissions from vehicles that would be used during Project operations and maintenance were estimated using CalEEMod v2016.3.2. It is assumed that up to six commuting workers and delivery of chemicals and supplies to the treatment facilities would result in up to 16 one-way trips per day. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Evaluation of GHG Emissions The Project would include no stationary sources of emissions that would require a MBARD permit. The Project would primarily result in indirect emissions associated with use of electricity generated from MBCP’s energy portfolio. These sources are regulated and permitted by local air districts throughout California and beyond. Because the sources of the indirect emissions are already regulated and permitted by the local air districts where the power plants reside, no permit or other MBARD approval would be required for the Project’s demand for electricity. For this reason, the stationary source threshold of 10,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year is not an appropriate threshold to gauge impact significance for the Project; the threshold option of 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year developed by BAAQMD for land use projects is more appropriate (see Significance Criteria, above). While the 10,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year significance threshold is not used, indirect emissions associated with electricity consumption are calculated and impacts are fully assessed in this section. In addition, there is no existing local or regional GHG reduction plan/climate action plan that would be applicable to the Project, such that compliance with an applicable adopted GHG reduction plan/climate action plan could be demonstrated for this Project. Therefore, compliance with an GHG reduction plan/climate action plan as a threshold for assessment is not considered practicable for evaluation of the Project. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.8-2. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.8-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – GHG EMISSIONS Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.8-1: The Project would not generate an amount of GHG emissions that would contribute substantially to climate change. LS Impact 4.8-2: The Project would not conflict with the Executive Order B-30-15 Emissions Reduction Goal. LS NOTE: LS = Less than Significant. Impact Discussion Impact 4.8-1: The Project would not generate an amount of GHG emissions that would contribute substantially to climate change. (Less than Significant) Implementation of the Project would result in short-term construction and long-term operational emissions. Construction and operation emissions that would be associated with the Project are discussed separately below; however, the impact conclusion is based on the sum of amortized construction emissions and the operational emissions (see Approach to Analysis discussion, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions above, for additional information regarding the methods used to estimate the Project’s short-term construction and long-term operation emissions). Construction Emissions As shown in Table 4.8-3, GHG emissions generated by construction of the Project would total approximately 740 metric tons CO 2 e, which equates to a 50-year amortized annual average value of approximately 15 metric tons CO 2 e (refer to the Approach to Analysis - Construction Emissions discussion for details on the approach this analysis uses relative to short-term construction emissions; and Appendix B for all assumptions associated with the GHG construction emissions). TABLE 4.8-3 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS FROM PROJECT CONSTRUCTION CO 2 e (metric tons) Construction Emission Source Chanticleer AWPF 133.95 SC WWTF Facilities 55.55 Recharge Wells 129.65 Pipelines 420.81 Total Emissions 739.95 50-Year Amortized Annual Average 14.80 SOURCE: ESA, 2018. See Appendix B. Operational Emissions The Project would generate long-term GHG emissions associated with electrical power consumption and vehicle travel. As described in the Approach to Analysis - Operational Emissions discussion, indirect emissions would result from a total Project-related net increase in electricity demand of approximately 3,600 MWh per year. To determine the estimated GHG emissions, the electricity demand was multiplied by the emission factors for CO 2 , N 2 0, and CH 4 , the N 2 0 and CH 4 emissions were converted to CO 2 e, and the three emissions types were added, for a total of 377.7 metric tons CO 2 e. Other emission sources that would occur during operations of the Project would include up to 16 one-way vehicle trips per day associated with commuting workers and chemical/supply deliveries. The estimated annual emissions that would be associated with these operational sources are presented in Table 4.8-4. As indicated in the table, total net CO 2 e emissions associated with operation of the Project would be approximately 390 metric tons per year. As listed in Table 4.8-4, the vast majority of GHG emissions associated with long-term operation of the Project would be indirect emissions from the Project’s use of electricity, which would be provided by MBCP. Over time MBCP will steadily increase the amount of renewable energy it procures for its energy production portfolio, which will lower the overall indirect GHG emissions associated with use of its electricity. MBCP’s electricity emissions rate (and thus the carbon Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions footprint of the Project’s electricity consumption) will continue to decrease throughout the life of the Project. TABLE 4.8-4 TOTAL GHG EMISSIONS PER YEAR FROM PROJECT OPERATIONS CO 2 e (metric tons) Operation Emissions Source Net Increase in Electricity Consumption 377.70 Vehicle Trips 12.78 Total 390.48 SOURCES: ESA, 2018. See Appendix B. Impact Conclusion As shown in Table 4.8-5, the sum of the 50-year amortized construction GHG emissions and the total net operation emissions that would be associated with the Project is approximately 405 metric tons CO 2 e per year. These emissions would be less than the 1,100 metric tons per year significance threshold; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur, and the Project would not be considered to contribute substantially to the primary and secondary adverse effects of climate change, such as increases in global temperatures, global rise in sea level, ocean acidification, impacts on agriculture, changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity. Mitigation: None required. TABLE 4.8-5 TOTAL AMORTIZED GHG EMISSIONS Emissions Source CO 2 e (metric tons per year) 50-Year Amortized Construction Emissions 15 Total Net Operational Emissions 390 Total Project Emissions 405 Significance Threshold 1,100 Significant Impact? No SOURCE: ESA, 2018. See Appendix B. _________________________ Impact 4.8-2: The Project would not conflict with the Executive Order B-30-15 Emissions Reduction Goal. (Less than Significant) As noted in the Significance Criteria discussion above, the threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO 2 e per year used to assess the significance of Impact 4.8-1 effectively requires mitigation for the top 92 percent of emissions generated by new land use projects, which would represent an overall reduction in new land use project-related emissions of up to 92 percent. Since the issuance of Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Executive Order B-30-15, the GHG emissions reductions goal of lowering GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, is roughly equivalent to reducing emissions by 44 percent below current levels, this analysis uses the same significance threshold to determine if the Project would generally be consistent with this goal. As discussed under Impact 4.8-1, the carbon footprint of the Project and the impact associated with GHG emissions would be less than significant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with the Executive Order B-30-15 Emissions Reduction Goal, and the associated impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.8.5 References – Greenhouse Gas Emissions Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2017. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, adopted June 2, 2010, updated May 2017. California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2009. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change, December 2008, amended version included errata and Board requested modifications posted May 11, 2009. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf. CARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan, Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. CARB, 2017a. Global Warming Potentials webpage, last reviewed June 6, 2017. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/background/gwp.htm. Accessed on February 21, 2018. CARB, 2017b. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2015 – by Sector and Activity, last updated June 6, 2017. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ ghg_inventory_sector_sum_2000-15.pdf. CARB, 2017c. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, a strategy for achieving California’s 2030 greenhouse gas target, November 2017. City of Capitola, 2015. Climate Action Plan for the City of Capitola, Adopted October 22, 2015. City of Santa Cruz, 2012. Climate Action Plan, June 2012. County of Santa Cruz, 2013. Climate Action Strategy, approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 26, 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2014. Climate Change 2014, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers, 2014. Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), 2018. Personal communication with Chris Duymich, Air Quality Planner, on February 22, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), 2016. Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. Adopted 1996. Revised February 2016. Office of the Governor, Governor Brown Establishes Most Ambitious Greenhouse Gas Reduction Target in North America, April 29, 2015. Available at https://www.gov.ca.gov/2015/04/29/ news18938. Accessed on February 21, 2018. Pacific Energy Advisors (PEA), 2016. Monterey Bay Community Power Technical Study, May 4, 2016. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD), 2012. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence, March 28, 2012. The Climate Registry (TCR), 2017. Climate Registry 2017 Default Emission Factors, released March 2017. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2017a. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html. Accessed on September 18, 2017. USEPA, 2017b. Clean Air Act Permitting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions webpage. Available at https://www.epa.gov/nsr/clean-air-act-permitting-greenhouse-gases. Accessed on September 18, 2017. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.8-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 4.9.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Project to result in adverse impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Potential hazards addressed in this section include potential releases of hazardous materials from equipment and materials during construction and operation; exposure to hazardous materials from existing hazardous materials sites; wildfires; airport safety; and emergency access and response plans. The analyses are based on information provided by the District, a search of regulatory agency databases of hazardous materials sites, and other published reports, all as cited in the sections below. Comments received relative to this section requested the EIR consider accidental toxic releases and the safety of the transport, use, handling, storage, and processing of hazardous materials; the use of hazardous materials in an earthquake zone; proximity to schools; the use of contaminated railroad bed soils for conveyance route; and consistency with elements of the Santa Cruz County General Plan. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. Hazardous materials impacts associated with groundwater recharge operations, such as potential for locally increased groundwater levels to mobilize existing hazardous materials in groundwater or soils are discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater. Possible hazards involving toxic air contaminant emissions and odors are discussed in Section 4.3, Air Quality, of this EIR. 4.9.2 Environmental Setting Definition of Hazardous Materials Definitions of terms used in the regulatory framework, characterization of baseline conditions, and impact analysis for hazards and hazardous materials are provided below. Hazardous Material: The term “hazardous material” can have varying definitions depending on the regulatory programs. For the purposes of this EIR, the term refers to both hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. The California Health and Safety Code Section 25501(p) defines hazardous material as: Hazardous material means any material that because of its quantity, concentrations, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous materials include, but are not limited to, hazardous substances, hazardous waste, and any material which a handler or the administering agency has a reasonable basis for believing would be injurious to the health and safety of persons or harmful to the environment if released into the workplace or the environment. Hazardous Waste: A “hazardous waste” is a waste that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristic, causes or significantly contributes to an increase in mortality or illness or poses substantial or potential threats to public health or the environment (42 U.S.C. 6903(5)). Hazardous wastes are further defined under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as substances exhibiting the characteristics of ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity. Chemical-specific Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials concentrations used to define whether a material is a hazardous, designated, or non-hazardous waste include Total Threshold Limit Concentrations (TTLCs), Soluble Threshold Limit Concentrations (STLCs), and Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLPs), listed in CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 66261, and used as waste acceptance criteria for landfills. Waste materials with chemical concentrations above TTLCs, STLCs, and TCLPs must be sent to Class I disposal facilities, may be sent to Class II disposal facilities depending on the waste material, and may not be sent to Class III disposal facilities. Screening Levels for Hazardous Materials in Soil, Soil Gas, or Groundwater: The USEPA Regional Screening Levels (RSLs, previously known as Preliminary Remediation Goals [PRGs]) and San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) are guidelines used to evaluate the potential risk associated with chemicals found in soil or groundwater where a release of hazardous materials has occurred. Although developed and maintained by the San Francisco Bay Area RWQCB, ESLs are used by regulatory agencies throughout the state. Screening levels have been established for both residential and commercial/industrial land uses, and for construction workers. Residential screening levels are the most restrictive; soil with chemical concentrations below these levels generally would not require remediation and would be suitable for unrestricted uses if disposed of off-site. Commercial/industrial screening levels are generally less restrictive than residential screening levels because they are based on potential worker exposure to hazardous materials in the soil (and these are generally less than residential exposures). Screening levels for construction workers are also less restrictive than for commercial/industrial workers because construction workers are only exposed to the chemical of concern during the duration of construction, while industrial workers are assumed to be exposed over a working lifetime. Chemical concentrations below these screening levels generally would not require remediation and would be suitable for unrestricted uses. In addition, there are other more specific but similar screening levels used more narrowly focused human health or ecological risk assessment considerations. Existing Site Conditions The following discussion describes the existing conditions at the locations of the Project components. The review of conditions includes chemicals used at existing facilities, hazardous building materials, and chemicals associated with active and closed hazardous materials sites that construction of the Project components have the potential to encounter. The regulatory agency records of active and closed hazardous materials sites are from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor website and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) GeoTracker website. Wastewater Treatment Facilities Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility The existing Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) at 110 California Street currently treats wastewater to secondary drinking water standards (City of Santa Cruz, 2013). Primary treatment is accomplished by separating floating and settled solids from the wastewater using screens, centrifugal pumps and grit chambers, and settling tanks. Secondary treatment is accomplished by separating solids from the wastewater, then trickling the wastewater over specially fabricated plastic media that support bacterial growth that digests the organic material in the wastewater, followed by passing the wastewater through a solids contact tank that converts heavier solids into clumps that are settled out of the wastewater, and finally thru ultraviolet lights Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials that kill bacteria. The Project would not change these primary, secondary, and disinfection treatment processes. A 1994 site investigation report indicates that during construction upgrades at the SC WWTF, some of the then-existing fill and soil contained total petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel and motor oil range (Brown & Caldwell, 1994). The upgrades included the excavation and removal of about 300,000 cubic yards of fill and soil, some of which consisted of buried road demolition debris (asphalt) and garbage (glass bottles, cans, newspaper, telephone poles, and automobile parts). The excavated area was adjacent and northwest of the proposed SC WWTF improvements. The area where garbage and road debris was encountered was about 500 feet west of the proposed improvements to the SC WWTF. The space that the Project would use is currently occupied by parts of the existing SC WWTF that are used for plant storage and maintenance truck parking. There are no structures that would be removed; the stored materials and trucks would be relocated elsewhere at the SC WWTF. The SC WWTF is listed on the regulatory agency databases has having an active permitted underground storage tank (UST); no permit violations are listed. Soquel Avenue-Chanticleer Avenue Intersection The Soquel Avenue-Chanticleer Avenue Intersection (Chanticleer Site) is currently occupied by Provision Glass & Window Inc. (two buildings and an unpaved equipment and materials area at 2455 Chanticleer Avenue, immediately adjacent to the Project site), Feast for a King Catering (one building and paved parking at 2431 Chanticleer Avenue), and one dilapidated boarded-up building adjacent to Soquel Avenue (within the Project site). The glass and catering businesses would remain. The dilapidated building appears to have once been a residence constructed before 1968, which pre-dates the nationwide ban on the use of asbestos-containing materials (ACM) and lead-based paint (LBP) in building construction materials. The structure has not been surveyed for the presence of ACM or LBP. Capitola Avenue-Soquel Drive Intersection The Capitola Avenue-Soquel Drive Intersection (Headquarters-West Annex Site) at 5180 Soquel Drive is currently occupied by District offices. The offices use small volumes of chemicals typical of office use (e.g., toner cartridges for printers, cleaning agents). In addition to the District Headquarters, the Headquarters-West Annex Site also includes an unpaved unimproved area. Proposed Conveyance System The proposed conveyance system route options are shown on Figure 3-1. The routes under consideration generally follow disturbed or existing developed road and railroad rights-of-way. The GeoTracker and EnviroStor regulatory agency websites were checked to identify known hazardous materials sites that may overlap conveyance route options. A number of active hazardous materials cases are along certain locations of the conveyance pipeline alignment route options, as shown on Figure 4.9-1. Active sites have the potential to have contaminated soil with chemicals at concentrations that are above regulatory screening levels. In addition, but not shown on the figure, there are numerous closed sites along all of the conveyance route options have been Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Gasamat Pottery Planet TOSCO Path: J:\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Haz_Materials.mxd, wsm 4/5/2018 Cabrillo College North Headquarters-West Annex Site Santa Cruz Å Ä 1 ) "" ) Chanticleer Site _ ^ ) " _ ^ Willowbrook Lane ) " # Monterey Ave # Twin Lakes Church McGregor ### Cabrillo College South Å Ä 1 Capitola Austin ) " ) " Steve's Metal Finishing _ ^ 0 Santa Cruz WWTF 1 Miles ) " Active Hazardous Materials Sites Project Components # Recharge Well (Options) _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; RWQCB, 2012, 2016, 2018a, 2018b; WHA, 2016; DTSC, 2008 Figure 4.9-1 Active Hazardous Materials Sites 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials cleaned up to the satisfaction of regulatory agencies. The closed sites may have residual concentrations of chemicals in soil that are at concentrations below regulatory screening levels but still above detection levels. The numerous closed sites are all former fuel leak sites. The discussion below summarizes the status of the active sites, which provides a description of the types of chemicals that may be present in soil. • Tosco - Facility #4818, 1505 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz. A soil vapor extraction and air sparge treatment system for leaked fuel has been constructed and is awaiting permitting approval for startup. This system would treat fuel contamination in both soil and groundwater (RWQCB, 2016). • Pottery Planet, 2600 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz. Both soil and groundwater have been contaminated with fuel at this site and additional soil and groundwater investigation has been proposed to further investigate the nature and extent of the release of fuel (RWQCB, 2018a). • Gasamat Oil Corp #955, 2680 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz. Both soil and groundwater have been contaminated with fuel at this site and the RWQCB has approved of a proposed dualphase (soil vapor and groundwater) extraction system for site cleanup (RWQCB, 2018b). • Austin Property (PCE Plume), 1037 17th Avenue, Santa Cruz. At this site, both soil and groundwater have been contaminated with tetrachloroethene (PCE), carbon tetrachloride, cis-1,2-dichloroethene, and 1,2-dichloroethane, which are cleaning solvents and their degradation products (RTD, 2011). However, site investigation indicated the release was limited to within the site and the RWQCB concluded that the concentrations are sufficiently low as to not warrant further action. • Steve's Metal Finishing, 980 17th Avenue, Santa Cruz. This site has historically been occupied by multiple operators (DTSC, 2008). The types of businesses operating at the site included furniture makers, auto dismantlers, auto repair and auto body shops, a machine shop, feed co-op, greenhouses, a mobile home manufacturer, artists, and woodworkers. Steve's Metal Finishing operated at the site from 1968 to 1970. There is no information as to exactly what type of metal finishing was performed at Steve's. The DTSC record indicates this site was referred to the local agency but does not name the agency. The DTSC record does not provide information regarding the reason for the referral or whether further action was required or taken. The County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Department (CSCEHD), maintains a list of sites under its jurisdiction that are being actively investigated and/or remediated, known as the Site Mitigation List (CSCEHD, 2017). Steve’s Metal Finishing is not on this list. Given that the site is not on the list, the site was either determined by the local agency not to be a problematic site or any issues that were identified as problematic were remediated sometime around 2008. • McGregor Property, 1560 McGregor Drive, Capitola. This site has concentrations of arsenic and lead in soil above screening levels (WHA, 2016). However, the site is on the south side of Highway 1 and the extent of released chemicals does not extend north to the footprint of the conveyance pipeline. In addition, the Santa Cruz County Rail Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) conducted sampling along its rail line in 2005 and 2009 to assess for contamination associated with the use of the rail line (AMEC, 2009). Shallow soil was analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, volatile Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials organic compounds, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, organochlorine pesticides, and metals, including arsenic. The results indicated that arsenic associated with herbicide use is present at some locations along the rail line concentrations above background levels but below cancer risk levels. However, arsenic may be present at concentrations that would require special handling during construction activities (i.e., waste disposal classification) and possible required disposal as hazardous waste. The study recommends a soil management plan for construction and excavation activities along the rail line. Proposed Recharge and Monitoring Well Sites Up to three recharge well sites are proposed to facilitate groundwater recharge of the Purisima Formation. Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology, and Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources Groundwater, discuss the Purisima Formation. Each recharge well would be accompanied by two nearby monitoring wells. The proposed well sites are shown on Figures 3-8a and 3-8b. The Monterey Avenue recharge well site is on District-owned property just west of the Monterey Avenue-Kennedy Drive intersection. This location is currently occupied by an existing out of commission well that is to be abandoned under a separate project. The Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well site is on District-owned property along the east side of Willowbrook Lane. This location is currently a vacant undeveloped lot. The Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site on property owned by Twin Lakes Church, on the west side of Cabrillo College Drive. The Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites are on Cabrillo College on the northeast corner of McGregor Drive and Cabrillo College Drive within an area currently occupied by trails and landscaping. Proximity to Schools The following lists schools that are within one-quarter mile of a Project component. • Spring Hill School, 250 California Street, Santa Cruz: conveyance pipeline in Bay Street • Bay View Elementary School, 1231 Bay Street, Santa Cruz: conveyance pipeline in Bay Street • Santa Cruz High School, 415 Walnut Avenue, Santa Cruz: conveyance pipeline in Laurel Street • Harbor High School, 300 La Fonda Avenue, Santa Cruz: conveyance pipeline in Soquel Avenue • Tierra Pacifica Charter School, 986 Bostwick Lane, Santa Cruz: conveyance pipeline in Soquel Avenue • The Bay School, 1026 Capitola Road, Capitola: conveyance pipeline in 7th Avenue • Opal Cliffs School, 4510 Jade Street, Capitola: conveyance pipeline in SCC RR right-of-way • Campus Kids Connection Preschool, 4510 Jade Street, Capitola: conveyance pipeline in SCC RR right-of-way • Soquel Elementary School, 2700 Porter Street, Soquel: conveyance pipeline in Porter Street • Tara Redwood School, 4746 Soquel Drive: conveyance pipeline in Soquel Drive Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Soquel High School, 401 Soquel San Jose Road, Soquel: conveyance pipeline in Porter Street and Soquel Drive • Soquel Elementary School, 620 Monterey Avenue, Soquel: conveyance pipeline in Kennedy Drive • Santa Cruz Montessori School, 6230 Soquel Drive: conveyance pipeline in Willowbrook Lane and Willowbrook Park recharge site • Twin Lakes Christian School, 2701 Cabrillo College Drive, Aptos: conveyance pipeline in Cabrillo College Drive and Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites • Cabrillo College, conveyance pipeline in Cabrillo College Drive and Cabrillo College recharge site Proximity to Airports There are no airports or airstrips within two miles of any of the Project components. Emergency and Disaster Routes The County of Santa Cruz has designated Highways 1, 9, and 17 as Key Transportation Routes in their Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Santa Cruz, 2015). Aptos and Soquel are included in the County plan. The City of Santa Cruz has designated Mission Street, Ocean Street, Water Street, Soquel Avenue, and Highways 1, 9, and 17 as Key Transportation Routes in their Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of Santa Cruz, 2007). The City of Capitola Local Hazard Mitigation Plan did not identify Key Transportation Routes (City of Capitola, 2013). Access to the SC WWTF would be on to Bay Street into the existing treatment facility. Access to the Chanticleer Site would be from Soquel Avenue through an area of commercial land use. Access to the Headquarters – West Annex Site would be from Soquel Drive through an area of commercial land use, with some residential uses. Wildland Fires The Project is within an urban area that is not designated as within a Critical Fire Hazard Area (County of Santa Cruz, 2015). 4.9.3 Regulatory Framework Federal and State Regulations The primary federal agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Fed/OSHA), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Federal laws, regulations, and responsible agencies are summarized in Table 4.9-1. State and local agencies often have either parallel or more stringent rules than federal agencies. In most cases, state law mirrors or overlaps federal law and enforcement of these laws is the responsibility of the state or of a local agency to which enforcement powers are delegated. For these reasons, the requirements of the law and its enforcement are discussed under either the state or local agency section. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.9-1 FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification Hazardous Materials Management Law or Responsible Federal Agency Description Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act [SARA]) Imposes requirements to ensure that hazardous materials are properly handled, used, stored, and disposed of and to prevent or mitigate injury to human health or the environment in the event that such materials are accidentally released. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) Under RCRA, the USEPA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste from “cradle to grave.” Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amended RCRA in 1984, affirming and extending the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. The amendments specifically prohibit the use of certain techniques for the disposal of some hazardous wastes. USDOT USDOT has the regulatory responsibility for the safe transportation of hazardous materials. The USDOT regulations govern all means of transportation except packages shipped by mail (49 CFR). U.S. Postal Service (USPS) USPS regulations govern the transportation of hazardous materials shipped by mail. Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 Fed/OSHA sets standards for safe workplaces and work practices, including the reporting of accidents and occupational injuries (29 CFR 1910). Toxic Substances Control Act Regulates the use and management of polychlorinated biphenyls in electrical equipment, and sets forth detailed safeguards to be followed during the disposal of such items. USEPA The USEPA monitors and regulates hazardous materials used in structural and building components and their effects on human health. Hazardous Waste Handling Hazardous Materials Transportation Occupational Safety Structural and Building Components (Lead-based paint, polychlorinated biphenyls, and asbestos) The primary state agencies with responsibility for hazardous materials management in the region include the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and the RWQCB within the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA), California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA), California Department of Health Services (CDHS), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). State laws, regulations, and responsible agencies are summarized in Table 4.9-2. Local Regulations ACM and LBP Regulations The Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD) is the local regulatory agency with responsibility for air monitoring, permitting, enforcement, long-range air quality planning, regulatory development, education and public information activities related to air pollution, as required by the California Clean Air Act and Amendments (HSC Section 40910 et seq.) and the Federal Clean Air Act and Amendments (42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.) includes jurisdiction over building demolition activities that involve the removal of ACM and/or LBP. The applicable MBARD rules are summarized below. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.9-2 STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification Hazardous Materials Management Law or Responsible State Agency Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program); CUPA Description In January 1996, Cal EPA adopted regulations, which implemented a Unified Program. The plan is implemented at the local level and the agency responsible for implementation of the Unified Program is called the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), which for the Project area, is the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services (EHS). State Hazardous Waste and The Project site includes one hazardous materials site on the Substances List (“Cortese List”); “Cortese List” compiled pursuant to Government Code DTSC, RWQCB, SC EHD. section 65962.5 and referenced in Public Resources Code 21092.6. The oversight of hazardous materials sites often involves several different agencies that may have overlapping authority and jurisdiction. For the on-site hazardous materials cases and issues, the RWQCB is the lead agency. Other cases may be overseen by the DTSC, the RWQCB, or the Santa Cruz County EHS. Hazardous Waste Handling Hazardous Materials Transportation Occupational Safety Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985; CUPA The California Hazardous Materials Release Response Plan and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act) requires that businesses that store hazardous materials on-site prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP) and submit it to the local CUPA, which in this case is the Santa Cruz County EHS. California Hazardous Waste Control Act; DTSC Under the California Hazardous Waste Control Act, California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq., DTSC regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste in California. The hazardous waste regulations establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; dictate the management of hazardous waste; establish permit requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identify hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed of in landfills. DTSC is also the administering agency for the California Hazardous Substance Account Act. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.8, Sections 25300 et seq., also known as the State Superfund law, providing for the investigation and remediation of hazardous substances pursuant to State law. Part 9 of the California Building Standards Code; Fire Departments Part 9 the California Fire Code regulates the operation, placement, and use of emergency generators. Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations Regulates the transportation of hazardous waste originating in the state and passing through the state through Caltrans (26 CCR). CHP and Caltrans These two state agencies are primary responsibility for enforcing federal and state regulations and responding to hazardous materials transportation emergencies. Cal/OSHA Cal/OSHA has primary responsibility for developing and enforcing workplace safety regulations in California. Because California has a federally approved OSHA program, it is required to adopt regulations that are at least as stringent as those found in Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Cal/OSHA standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations. Cal/OSHA regulations (8 CCR) Concerning the use of hazardous materials in the workplace require employee safety training, safety equipment, accident and illness prevention programs, hazardous substance exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. 4.9-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.9-2 (CONTINUED) STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification Occupational Safety (cont.) Law or Responsible State Agency California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Description The Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development serves as the regulatory building agency for all hospitals and nursing homes in California. Its primary goal in this regard is to ensure that patients in these facilities are safe in the event of an earthquake or other disaster, and to ensure that the facilities remain functional after such an event in order to meet the needs of the community affected by the disaster. RWQCB Construction Storm Water General Permit (Construction General Permit; Order 20090009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ) Dischargers whose project disturbs one or more acres of soil or where projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one of more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Construction General Permit; Order 2009-0009-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002; as amended by Orders 2010-0014DWQ and 2012-006-DWQ). Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, grubbing, and other disturbances to the ground such as excavation and stockpiling, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of a facility. The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to prevent sediment and pollutants from contacting stormwater from moving off-site into receiving waters. The BMPs fall into several categories, including erosion control, sediment control, waste management and good housekeeping, and are intended to protect surface water quality by preventing the offsite migration of eroded soil and construction-related pollutants from the construction area. RWQCB The MS4 permit requires permittees (in this case, the County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola) to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment using BMPs to the maximum extent practical. The MS4 permittee also has its own development standards, also known as Low Impact Development (LID)/post-construction standards that include a hydromodification element. The MS4 permit requires specific design concepts for LID/post-construction BMPs in the early stages of a project during the entitlement and CEQA process and the development plan review process. RWQCB Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057DWQ Stormwater discharges associated with industrial sites must comply with the regulations contained in the Industrial Storm Water General Permit Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ (IGP). The IGP regulates discharges associated with certain defined categories of industrial activities including manufacturing facilities; hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; landfills, land application sites, and open dumps; cement manufacturing; fertilizer manufacturing; petroleum refining; phosphate manufacturing; recycling facilities; steam electric power generating facilities; transportation facilities; and sewage or wastewater treatment works. The IGP requires the implementation of best management practices, a sitespecific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and monitoring plan. The IGP also includes criteria for demonstrating no exposure of industrial activities or materials to stormwater, and no discharges to waters of the United States. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Permit NPDES No. CAS000004 and Order No. 20130001DWQ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials TABLE 4.9-2 (CONTINUED) STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT Classification Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) and NPDES Permit Law or Responsible State Agency RWQCB Description The state Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the federal RCRA provide the SWRCB and the RWQCBs with the authority to regulate waste discharges. The program is a USEPA approved program for implementing RCRA Subtitle D regulations. California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 27 contains the regulatory requirements for non-hazardous wastes. CCR Title 23 (Chapter 15) contains the regulatory requirements for hazardous wastes. These regulations are implemented through the issuance of WDRs. The regulations prescribe protective measures as well as require performance standards to be met in waste containment. A version of these regulations has been in effect since 1972 with the adoption of Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Section 13260 of the California Water Code requires that persons or entities proposing to discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the State shall submit a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) containing information on the operation of the facility and the measures to be implemented to prevent degradation of the quality of waters of the State. The submission of the ROWD starts the application process which is completed when the RWQCB completes its review of the proposed operations, is satisfied that the quality of waters of the Sate will be protected, and issues the WDR and the NPDES permit to operate the facility. Underground Infrastructure California Government Code Section 4216-4216.9 Section 4216-4216.9 “Protection of Underground Infrastructure” requires an excavator to contact a regional notification center (e.g., Underground Services Alert or Dig Alert) at least two days prior to excavation of any subsurface installations. Any utility provider seeking to begin a project that could damage underground infrastructure can call Underground Service Alert, the regional notification center for southern California. Underground Service Alert will notify the utilities that may have buried lines within 1,000 feet of the Project. Representatives of the utilities are then notified and are required to mark the specific location of their facilities within the work area prior to the start of Project activities in the area. Air District Rule 424 - National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Rule 424 describes the MBARD’s enforcement authority for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants by incorporating those provisions of Parts 61 and 63, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40CFR Parts 61 & 63) and California Health and Safety Code Sections 40001 and 40702 into this Rule by reference. Rule 424 requires all suspect building materials that will be disturbed by planned demolition or renovation activities shall be sampled and analyzed for asbestos using the method specified in Appendix E, Subpart E, 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 763, Section 1 (Polarized Light Microscopy) or assumed to be ACM. Building surveys shall clearly identify all suspect building materials, sample locations and the laboratory analysis for each sample taken in a written report. Suspect building materials include ACM, LBP, mercury in fluorescent light tubes and switches, PCBs in transformers and fluorescent light ballasts. The written building survey report shall be submitted along with the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials notification for each demolition project and for asbestos removal projects that will disturb building materials other than those being abated. Air District Rule 439 – Building Removals The purpose of Rule 439 is to limit particulate emissions from the removal of buildings within the MBARD area of jurisdiction. Relative to LBP, the provisions of Rule 439 derive from the standards for lead exposure in the California Air Resources Board’s Risk Management Guidelines for New, Modified, and Existing Sources of Lead. The Rule describes work practice standards including the wetting of surfaces, demolishing buildings inward toward the building pad, laying down of roofs and walls inward toward the building pad, and the prohibition of demolition activities when the wind speed exceeds 15 miles per hour. California Government Code Section 53091 exempts this Project from local zoning and building codes. 4.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on Hazards and Hazardous Materials if it would: • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school • Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • Be located within an area covered by an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; • Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • Expose 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. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Approach to Analysis General The analysis of hazards and hazardous materials impacts is based on the components and actions for the Project, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description. Hazards and hazardous materials information for the Project was derived from various sources and compiled in this chapter to develop a comprehensive understanding of the potential constraints and hazards associated with Project construction (including demolition of existing on-site structures) and long-term operation. Information sources include the Project design information provided by the District and from regulatory agency database searches, site reconnaissance, and applicable laws, ordinances, regulations, and standards. The impact analyses determine whether, and to what degree, the Project could change the existing conditions described in Section 4.9.2, Environmental Setting. Construction and operation of the Project would be regulated by the various laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies summarized in the Regulatory Framework. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in the analysis of impacts because these regulatory requirements are mandatory and the application of the associated protective measures (such as BMPs, Monitoring and Reporting Plans, and the application of corrective actions) are non-discretionary, and are proven to minimize and/or avoid hydrologic or water quality impacts. Further, regulatory agencies with technical jurisdiction and authority for oversight would require adherence to regulatory requirements as a condition of Project or permit approval and would continue to enforce applicable requirements throughout Project construction and operation phases. Compliance with these regulations, which is mandatory, would reduce potential effects of Project construction and operation as intended by the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework. The analysis considers the range and nature of foreseeable hazardous materials use, storage, and disposal resulting from the construction and operation phases of the Project and identifies the primary ways that these hazardous materials could expose individuals or the environment to hazardous materials risks. A significant impact would occur if, after considering the features described in the Project Description and the required compliance with regulatory requirements, a significant impact would still occur. For those impacts considered to be significant, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the identified impacts. American Water Works Association Standards for Proposed Pipelines The AWWA is a worldwide nonprofit scientific and educational association that, among its many activities, establishes recommended standards for the construction and operation of public water supply systems, including standards for pipe and water treatment facility materials and sizing, installation, and facility operations. While the AWWA’s recommended standards are not enforceable code requirements, they nevertheless can dictate how pipelines for water conveyance are designed and constructed. The District has committed to requiring its contractors to incorporate AWWA Standards into the construction of the proposed pipelines as a Project Design Feature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association Standards for Proposed Pipelines Pipelines are constructed to various industry standards. AREMA is a nationwide non-profit industry association that, among its many activities, establishes recommends standards for the construction and operation of rail systems, including standards for the placement of underground utilities, such as water pipelines, within rail alignments. Chapter 1, Part 5 of their Manual for Railway Engineering provides recommended standards for utilities, including pipelines constructed within a rail way alignment. While the AREMA’s recommended standards are not enforceable code requirements, they nevertheless can dictate how pipelines are designed and constructed within rail alignments. The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission, the owner of the rail line one pipeline alignment option would use, requires contractors working within the rail alignment to incorporate AREMA Standards into the design and construction of the proposed pipelines. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Proximity to airports and airstrips. The Project would not be located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. Accordingly, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Wildfires. The Project would not be located within an area designated as a Critical Fire Hazard Area. Accordingly, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.9-3. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.9-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.9-1: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. LS Impact 4.9-2: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. LS Impact 4.9-3: The Project would be located on or adjacent to a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. LSM Impact 4.9-4: The Project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LSM NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Discussion Impact 4.9-1: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, disposal, or accidental release of hazardous materials. (Less than Significant) Construction During demolition and construction activities, equipment and materials could include fuels, oils and lubricants, solvents and cleaners, cements and adhesives, paints and thinners, degreasers, cement and concrete, and asphalt mixtures, which are all commonly used in construction. The routine use or an accidental spill of hazardous materials could result in inadvertent releases, which could adversely affect construction workers, the public, and the environment. The potential impacts from encountering contaminated soil and/or groundwater are analyzed further below in Impact 4.9-3. In addition, implementation of the Project would include the demolition and removal of the dilapidated structure at the Chanticleer Site, if that site is chosen as a Project treatment facility location. As discussed in the Environmental Setting, the structure pre-dates the 1970s nationwide ban on the use of ACM and LBP in building construction materials; therefore, the structure may have ACM and/or LBP. If improperly handled, demolition workers could be exposed to hazardous materials. Construction activities would be required to comply with numerous hazardous materials and stormwater regulations designed to ensure that hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed of in a safe manner to protect worker safety, and to reduce the potential for a release of construction-related fuels or other hazardous materials into the environment, including stormwater and downstream receiving water bodies. In particular, contractors would be required to prepare and implement HMBPs that would require that hazardous materials used for construction would be used properly and stored in appropriate containers with secondary containment to contain a potential release. The California Fire Code would also require measures for the safe storage and handling of hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, construction contractors would be required to prepare a SWPPP for construction activities according to the General Construction Permit requirements. The SWPPP would list the hazardous materials (including petroleum products) proposed for use during construction; describe spill prevention measures, equipment inspections, equipment and fuel storage; protocols for responding immediately to spills; and describe BMPs for controlling site runoff. In addition, the transportation of hazardous materials would be regulated by the USDOT, Caltrans, and the CHP. Together, federal and state agencies determine driver-training requirements, load labeling procedures, and container specifications designed to minimize the risk of accidental release. Finally, in the event of a spill that releases hazardous materials, a coordinated response would occur at the federal, state, and local levels, including the County and city agencies. In the event of a hazardous materials spill, the police and fire departments would be simultaneously notified and sent to the scene to respond and assess the situation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials In the case of ACM and LBP, numerous existing laws and regulations require that demolition activities that may disturb or require the removal of materials that consist of, contain, or are coated with ACM and/or LBP must be inspected and/or tested for the presence of hazardous materials. If present, the hazardous materials must be managed and disposed of in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. The Project would be required to comply with the applicable mandatory requirements of the General Construction Permit, including the SWPPP, or would be subject to stop-work orders and fines. The identification, removal, and disposal is regulated under CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 4, Sections 1529 and 5208, and MBARD Rule 424 for ACM, and CCR Title 8, Division 1, Chapter 4, Article 4, Section 1532.1, and MBARD Rules 442 and 439 for LBP. All work must be conducted by a State-certified professional, which would ensure compliance with all applicable regulations. If ACM and/or LBP are determined to exist on-site, a site-specific hazard control plan must be prepared detailing removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and equipment for abatement personnel. A State-certified LBP and/or an ACM removal contractor would be retained to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill permitted to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the contractor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the local Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services and MBARD that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The required compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and would render this impact less than significant. Operation Water Treatment Chemicals Once operational, the treatment facilities would use the water treatment chemicals discussed in Section 3.7.1, Facilities Operations and Maintenance. The District would be required to prepare and implement a HMBP that would identify the hazardous materials to be used in the treatment process, procedures for the safe transportation, storage, use and disposal of chemicals, and spill response procedures in the event of a spill. The CUPA will not issue a facility operating permit without compliance, and a facility that uses hazardous materials without an approved HMBP is subject to closure and fines. The requirements include primary and secondary containment of all hazardous materials, training for the use of hazardous materials, routine facility inspections, and the establishment of spill prevention and response procedures in the event of a spill. The transportation regulations enforced by the CHP and Caltrans include periodic inspections of vehicles and containers used to transport hazardous materials to ensure compliance with container requirements. Collectively, the HMBP and transportation requirements would ensure compliance with the numerous regulations summarized in the Regulatory Framework. The required implementation and compliance with existing regulations would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and would render this impact less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Secondary Effluent and Brine Water Conveyance Pipelines Once operational, the conveyance pipelines would convey water to the recharge well sites. For options where the AWPF occurs at the SC WWTF, the conveyance pipelines would convey water treated to drinking water standards to the recharge wells with revisions to their existing WDRs and NPDES permit to include the additional operations. For options where the AWPF occurs at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex sites, the conveyance pipelines would convey water treated to secondary treatment levels to either the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex AWPFs, followed by conveyance of water treated to drinking water standards to the recharge wells. Without implementation of recommended design standards, pipelines conveying water treated to secondary treatment standards could leak or break, which would result in the discharge secondary effluent. In addition, water treated at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex AWPF would require a brine conveyance pipeline back to the SC WWTF to tie into their existing ocean outfall pipeline. A leak or break in the brine pipeline would result in the discharge of brine. Finally, the AWPF also has the potential for leaks or breaks within the facility that could result in discharge of brine or water treatment chemicals that could adversely affect the quality of waters of the State. As described in Section 3.6.4, Construction Activities, Construction Equipment, and Construction Workforce, or the District has committed to using the AWWA industry standards for construction of pipelines, including underground pipelines. These standards set forth the acceptable materials, sizes, placement, and encasement requirements for pipelines. These standards also describe the appropriate separation distances from other existing underground utilities such as underground electrical lines. In addition, for the options where the AWPF occurs at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex sites, the conveyance pipelines could use the alignment along the existing railroad tracks. As also noted in Section 3.6.4, for the placement of pipelines and other utilities in railroad alignments, the District has committed to using the AREMA industry standards. These standards provide minimum separation distances and encasement requirements to prevent vibration caused by passing trains from loosening and breaking the conveyance pipelines. Designing the project in accordance with AWWA and AREMA industry standards would avoid the potential for leaks and breaks in pipelines, including those required for AWPF operations. As a result, through incorporation of the AWWA and AREMA standards, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials, including the release of brine or other hazardous materials associated with the AWPF operations. Moreover, while not required to reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level, operation of Recharge Wells As discussed in Chapter 3, Project Description, drinking water quality is regulated under Title 22, Article 5.2. Groundwater Replenishment – Subsurface Application of the California Code of Regulations, which sets forth the treatment requirements for IPR projects involving groundwater. These regulations have set requirements for the treatment and testing of water to be used for drinking water purposes. In addition, much of the proposed additions to the treatment process would be less reliant on chemicals compared to older technologies. Much of the treatment process would be accomplished by ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF), followed by reverse Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials osmosis (RO) and an ultraviolet light-based advanced oxidation process (UV AOP), which are physical or chemical processes. Upon completion of the treatment process, the water to be pumped into the conveyance lines would be routinely tested for compliance with drinking water standards prior to leaving the treatment facility. Because no hazardous materials would be used in conveying treated water through conveyance pipelines and recharge wells, there would be no impact. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.9-2: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. (Less than Significant) As discussed in the Environmental Setting, there are 15 schools within one-quarter mile of a conveyance pipeline route or recharge well site. There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the SC WWTP or the WWPF sites. Construction The construction of the conveyance pipelines and recharge wells would include the use of equipment and materials that would use some hazardous materials. As discussed above in Impact 4.9-1, the required compliance with the numerous laws and regulations discussed above that govern the transportation, use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the use or accidental release of hazardous materials, and would render this impact less than significant. Operation Recharge Wells The recharge wells and the conveyance pipelines conveying water from the AWPF to the recharge well sites would only receive water treated to drinking water standards. This water would not be a hazardous material, resulting in no impact. Secondary Effluent and Brine Conveyance Pipelines As previously discussed, the separate conveyance pipelines would convey secondary effluent and brine if the AWPF is located at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex sites. This would result in conveying secondary effluent and brine in underground pipeline near schools. If the pipelines were to leak or break, the effluent or brine could be released within one-quarter mile of a school. As previously discussed in Impact 4.9-1, the conveyance pipelines would be regulated under the WDR that would be issued by the SWRCB for the operation of the Chanticleer or HeadquartersWest Annex AWPF, which would include the preparation and implementation of a spill prevention and response plan. For the construction of pipelines, including underground pipelines, the District has committed to using the AWWA industry standards, as noted above in Methodology. These standards would describe the acceptable materials, sizes, placement, and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials encasement requirements for pipelines. These standards would also describe the appropriate separation distances from other existing underground utilities such as underground electrical lines. In addition, and as described above in Impact 4.9-1, the District has committed to using the AREMA industry standards for pipelines in the railroad alignment to prevent vibration caused by passing trains from loosening and breaking the conveyance pipelines. The preparation and implementation of the spill response plan and compliance with the AREMA standards and would reduce the impact to less than significant. Transportation of Hazardous Materials In addition, as discussed above in Impact 4.9-1, the transportation regulations enforced by the CHP and Caltrans include periodic inspections of vehicles and containers used to transport hazardous materials to ensure compliance with container requirements. The required compliance with existing regulations would limit the potential for creation of hazardous conditions due to the accidental release of hazardous materials near schools, and would render this impact less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.9-3: The Project would be located on or adjacent to a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction As discussed in the Environmental Setting, the components of the Project that would be at the SC WWTF and the conveyance pipelines would be on and adjacent to a number of active and closed hazardous materials sites. Excavation activities may encounter soil with residual levels of fuels, solvents, and/or metals that could expose workers, the public, and the environment to hazardous materials, which would be a significant impact. The Project components that would be at the Chanticleer Site, the Headquarters – West Annex Site, and the recharge and monitoring wells sites would not be on or adjacent to known hazardous materials sites. This condition does not mean that there are no unknown contamination issues that may be encountered, given that the properties have long been developed. In addition, although not listed on a regulatory agency list, soil along the rail line is known to have arsenic in some locations at concentrations that would require disposal as a hazardous waste. The impact of encountering hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.9-3a (Health and Safety Plan), and 4.9-3b (Soil Management Plan). 1 These plans would ensure that workers are provided appropriate training in 1 As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to inform and support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the selected sites would be known, and the design could progress to a more advanced level. At that time, the District (or the District’s contractor) would prepare the subject plans, based upon the site- and design- Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials the recognition and response to encountering hazardous materials, and that plans are in place that provide procedures for the testing, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. Implementing Mitigation Measures 4.9-3a and 4.9-3b would remove the hazardous materials and reduce the impact associated with contaminated soil to less than significant with mitigation. Operations Upon completion of the construction activities, any contaminated materials found at the Project sites would have been removed. No further soil excavation would occur during operational activities, with the possible exception of excavation needed to repair or upgrade Project facilities and in the same location of those facilities. Thus, there would be no impact during operations due to being on a listed hazardous materials site. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.9-3a: Health and Safety Plan. The District or its construction contractor(s) shall prepare and implement site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.120 to protect construction workers and the public during all excavation and grading activities. This HASP shall be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to commencement of demolition and construction activities. The HASP shall include, but is not limited to, the following elements: • Designation of a trained, experienced site safety and health supervisor who has the responsibility and authority to develop and implement the site HASP; • A summary of all potential risks to demolition and construction workers and maximum exposure limits for all known and reasonably foreseeable site chemicals; • Specified personal protective equipment and decontamination procedures, if needed; • Emergency procedures, including route to the nearest hospital; and • Procedures to be followed in the event that evidence of potential soil or groundwater contamination (such as soil staining, noxious odors, debris or buried storage containers) is encountered. These procedures shall be in accordance with hazardous waste operations regulations and specifically include, but are not limited to, the following: immediately stopping work in the vicinity of the unknown hazardous materials release, and notifying Santa Cruz County EHS. Mitigation Measure 4.9-3b: Soil Management Plan. In support of the HASP described above in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the contractor shall develop and implement a Soil Management Plan (SMP) that describes the procedures for managing excavated soil. The SMP shall include procedures for monitoring soil for possible contamination, identifying the specific stockpiling locations and measures to contain the stockpiled soil to prevent run on and run off, and materials disposal specifying how the construction contractor(s) will remove, handle, transport, and specific information available at that time. As the Health and Safety Plan and the Soil Management Plan are tailored to the specific sites on which construction activities would occur, to prepare these plans before the final Project siting and design has been determined would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials dispose of all excavated materials in a safe, appropriate, and lawful manner. The SMP shall specify the contractor will segregate and dispose of soil with chemical concentrations above US EPA RSLs and RWQCB ESLs screening levels. Soil with chemical concentrations below screening levels may be reused or recycled. Soil with chemical concentrations above screening levels shall be disposed of in accordance with the applicable provisions of CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3, Section 66261 (i.e., Class III (non-hazardous waste), Class II (non-hazardous and “designated” waste), or Class I (non-hazardous and hazardous waste)). The SMP must identify protocols for soil testing and disposal, identify the approved disposal sites, and include written documentation that the disposal site can accept the waste. Contract specifications shall mandate full compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations related to the identification, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials, including those encountered in excavated soil. This SMP shall be submitted to the District and the Santa Cruz County EHS for review and approval prior to commencement of construction. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant _________________________ Impact 4.9-4: The Project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction As discussed in the Environmental Setting, Highway 1 and Soquel Avenue are Key Transportation Routes. Some of the conveyance pipelines would be constructed within these routes and would require temporary road closures. The lane closures could interfere with emergency responses or evacuations placing people at risk. As discussed in Section 4.15, Transportation, a Traffic Control Plan would be prepared and implemented to ensure that traffic, including emergency vehicles, would be able to flow around construction zones. With implementation of the Traffic Control Plan, impacts would be less than significant. The damage of underground utilities during construction could result in lane closures to repair said utilities. Construction activities in public roads would be required to comply with California Government Code Section 4216-4216.9 (refer to Regulatory Framework). This regulation would require locating underground utilities prior to construction to prevent the accidental damage. With compliance with the regulation to identify the location of underground utilities, impacts would be less than significant. Operation Once operational, the Project would not require road closures and would not result in increases in road traffic. Therefore, relative to emergency responses or evacuations, there would be no impact. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction). Refer to Impact 4.15-1 in Section 4.15, Transportation, for details. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant _________________________ 4.9.5 References – Hazards and Hazardous Materials Amec, 2009. Phase II Investigations and Human Health Risk Assessment for Arsenic Santa Cruz Branch Line Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, California, December. Brown and Caldwell, 1994. Summary of Site Investigation and Soil Sampling Services Performed at Santa Cruz Secondary Treatment Facility between June 30 and October 31, 1994, December 21. City of Capitola, 2013. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007-2012, May. City of Santa Cruz, 2007. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2007-2012, September 11. ———, 2015. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015-2020, September. City of Santa Cruz Public Works Department, 2013. City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility, February 4. County of Santa Cruz, Environmental Health Department (CSCEHD), 2017, Site Mitigation List, September 15. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2008. Summary, Steve’s Metal Finishing, May 28. Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), 2016. UST: Former 76 Service Station 4818, 1505 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County; Response to Multi-Phase Extraction Pilot Test Report (Case No. 623), October 16. ———, 2018a. UST: Pottery Planet - 2600 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County; Response to Workplan for Additional Site Assessment and Interim Corrective Actions (Case No. 3711), January 22. ———, 2018b. UST: Gasamat No. 955, 2680 Soquel Avenue, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County; Response to Corrective Action Plan (Case No. 2439), January 22. RTD, 2011. Austin Property, 1037 17th Avenue, Santa Cruz, California, Former El Dorado Meat Company Site, Investigation Report to Characterize PCE Impacts, December 24. Weber, Hayes & Associates (WHA). 2016, Amended Remedial Action Plan, McGregor Community Park Development Property, 1560 McGregor Drive, Capitola, California, February. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.9-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater 4.10.1 Introduction The analysis of hydrology and water quality is separated into two sections in this EIR. This section addresses groundwater hydrology and water quality. Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, addresses surface water hydrology and water quality, including the marine environment of Monterey Bay and changes in impervious surfaces. This section describes the existing groundwater conditions and resources in the District and evaluates the impacts of the Project on the groundwater resources within the Santa Cruz MidCounty Groundwater Basin (Basin). Section 4.10.2, Environmental Setting, describes the existing environmental conditions as they relate to groundwater resources, such as the hydrogeologic characteristics of the groundwater basin and groundwater levels and movement. Section 4.10.3, Regulatory Framework, provides the existing federal, state and local regulatory framework under which the Project would be required to comply. Section 4.10.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, presents the significance criteria and analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with Project implementation. The impact analysis considers the potential for the Project to impact District and private supply wells, surface water resources through altering surface water/groundwater interactions, and groundwater quality. Mitigation for potential impacts is provided, as appropriate. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Hydrology Resources – Groundwater express concern regarding the potential for water quality degradation of District and non-District groundwater supplies, methods for ensuring drinking water quality including constituents of emerging concern (CECs), information on relevant studies evaluating the long term risks associated with using wastewater as source water, adequacy of water purification technologies, evaluation of source water quality, regulations and standards in place, and other water quality considerations. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.10.2 Environmental Setting The study area for the groundwater resources analysis is synonymous with the Basin, which covers the mid-Santa Cruz County region and extends from Branciforte Creek in the west through Aptos and La Selva Beach to the east and from the Zayante fault in the north to the ocean in the south (Figure 4.10-1). The Basin is a relatively new delineation by California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in that the previous basin boundaries were recently modified to better reflect the groundwater hydrology of the Basin, as well as accurately define jurisdictions of agencies managing basins in the region (HydroMetrics WRI, 2016). The opportunity for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA) to propose modifications to the groundwater basin boundary was made possible by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Additional information on the SGMA is provided in Section 4.10.3, below. The MGA submitted a Basin Boundary Modification Request to the DWR in June 2016, and the boundaries were approved in September 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin Santa Margarita Basin SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-1 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Boundaries 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater The District, Central Water District (CWD) and the City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) operate municipal wells in the Basin. The District and CWD rely exclusively on groundwater to meet their needs, while SCWD uses a combination of groundwater and surface water supplies to meet demand. Hydrogeologic Framework The District supplies groundwater to its customers from 17 wells pumping from underground aquifers in two geologic formations. The primary water-bearing geologic formations within the Basin are the Purisima Formation and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer (also referred to as the Aromas Aquifer). Figure 4.10-2 illustrates the groundwater units underlying the District’s service area. Figure 4.10-3 is a cross-section (A-A’) of the hydrogeologic units that roughly parallels the coast within the District and shows the relationship of the subunits in the Purisima and Aromas Red Sands. Due to the proximity of the Basin to Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, these hydrogeologic units have offshore ocean outcrops, which present opportunities for seawater intrusion along the coast. Purisima Formation The District extracts groundwater from the deep water-bearing zones within the Purisima Formation, a 2,000-foot-thick body of sandstone interbedded with layers of siltstone and claystone. Beneath the Basin, the Purisima Formation overlies a “basement” rock made up of ancient intrusive (i.e., granite) and chemically and structurally altered (metamorphic) rocks. 1 The gradual uplift of the California coast has caused the units of the Purisima Formation to tilt (dip) from the west to the east. This easterly dip causes the lowermost (oldest) units to occur along ridgetops in the western portion of the Basin; the uppermost (youngest) units occur in the southeast. The northern boundary of the Purisima Formation appears to be within a tightly folded syncline 2 north of the Zayante fault along the upper portions of the Soquel and Aptos Creek watersheds (Figure 4.10-3). The Zayante fault may have been an important geologic structural feature in this region millions of years ago, but by about 23 million years ago, seismic activity had decreased. The Zayante fault serves as the basin boundary. The Purisima Formation is a collection of distinct geologic units, to which hydrogeologists have assigned the identification letters AA through F (Figure 4.10-3). Purisima AA unit is the deepest and oldest unit, while Purisima F unit is the shallowest and youngest of the units. Purisima A unit, from which the District obtains much of its supply and is targeted for replenishment under the Project, overlies the older AA unit. The Project would also replenish groundwater in Purisima BC unit, which is younger than A Unit and located between B and D Units. Some of the Purisima Formation units transmit and store groundwater (also known as aquifers); some restrict or impede groundwater movement (also known as aquitards); and some contain geologic materials that act as both aquifers and aquitards. The units that the Project would replenish are aquifers. Table 4.10-1 summarizes the hydrogeologic characteristics of the individual Purisima Formation units in order of youngest to oldest. Additionally, Table 4.10-1 identifies key District supply wells (Figure 4.10-4) that draw 1 2 Basement rocks are typically the oldest and deepest rocks underlying a particular area. Under the Santa Cruz MidCounty Basin, the basement rocks were formed during the Jurassic period, about 136 million years ago. A fold of stratified rock in which the strata slope upward from the axis. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater groundwater from the various geologic units. The hydrogeologic units presented in the table were first proposed by Johnson et al. (2004) to conceptualize the distribution of hydrogeologic properties and groundwater pumping effects. TABLE 4.10-1 PURISIMA FORMATION HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS Purisima Formation Unit Average Thickness (Feet) Unit F Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characteristics Hydrogeologic Significance to District Wells 150 to 500+ Sequence of alternating moderately coarse- and finegrained zones. This unit is often screened in conjunction with the lower Aromas Red Sands aquifer. The Polo Grounds and Aptos Jr. High Wells are screened in this unit. Unit DEF Aquifer ~330 Moderately coarse aquifer includes intermittent fine-grained zones. The top of this aquifer is poorly defined. The T. Hopkins, Granite Way and Aptos Creek Wells are screened in this unit. Unit D Aquitard ~80 Fine-grained sediments that act as an aquitard. Wells west of Aptos Creek and shallow wells are screened in upper portion of the unit. Unit BC Aquifer ~200 Moderately coarse-grained unit with distinct 15- to 20-foot thick coarse-grained unit at the top of the unit. Water-bearing aquifer with some thin aquitards. The Aptos Creek, Ledyard. Madeline and Estates Wells are at least partially screened in this unit. Unit B Aquitard ~150 Consists of fine-grained sediments that act as an aquitard. Few wells are screened across this unit. Unit A Aquifer ~250 Most consistently coarse-grained aquifer within the Purisima Formation. Distinct and highly permeable. Many groundwater wells are screened in this unit, including City of Santa Cruz wells Unit AA Aquifer 150 to 300 Consists of interbedded, moderately coarse- and finegrained zones underlying the well-defined aquifer A. Few wells are screened in aquifer AA. The Rosedale, Main Street and O’Neill Ranch Wells are partially screened in this unit. Unit Tm Aquitard 0 to 200 Consists of fine-grained sediments near the base of the Purisima Formation that act as an aquitard where present. Few wells penetrate fine-grained material. Tu Aquifer 0 to 300 Comprises the lower part of the Tertiary-age sediments below the base of the Purisima Formation. This aquifer has only been observed in deep wells and is limited in extent. The Main Street and O’Neill Ranch Wells are partially screened in this unit. SOURCE: HydroMetrics, 2017b Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-2 Purisima-Aromas Outcrop Areas SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-3 Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-A' Recharge Wells (options) Municipal Active Municipal Wells SqCWD Monitoring Well City of Santa Cruz Monitoring Well Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Figure 1. Recharge, Municipal, and Monitoring Well Locations Figure 4.10-4 Existing Municipal Supply and Monitoring Wells and Proposed Recharge Wells 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Aromas Red Sands Aquifer District wells pump groundwater from the semi-confined and unconfined units of the Aromas Red Sands aquifer, which represents one of several sedimentary terrace deposits that form the hills and coastal terraces east and southeast of Aptos. These poorly consolidated deposits are younger than the Purisima Formation and lie over it within the study area. The Aromas Red Sands aquifer is composed of sand deposited by rivers, the bay, and by wind, and contains interbedded layers of silt and clay. Within the Basin, the aquifer is about 400-feet thick and divided into the 225-foot-thick upper aquifer unit (Qua) and the 175-foot-thick lower aquifer unit (Qla). Most production wells are screened in the lower aquifer unit and often extend into the underlying Purisima F unit; none of the District production wells are screened in the upper unit (District, 2006). Offshore Geology Areas of exposed Purisima Formation units extend offshore of the Project area due to the geologic orientation and dip of the beds. The offshore extension of the Purisima Formation is an important aspect of the relationship between the onshore fresh groundwater and the offshore saltwater, because such a structural configuration can allow the transmission of freshwater towards the ocean and, under other conditions, cause saltwater to move inland. The potential for seawater intrusion into the Purisima Formation aquifers is discussed in detail below. The Purisima A unit outcrops the nearest to shore off Pleasure Point and is closest to the City of Santa Cruz’s Live Oak Well Field. Offshore, the Aromas Red Sands aquifer is difficult to distinguish; however, studies suggest it is exposed offshore in the shallow waters in the southeast portion of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin (District, 2006). Groundwater Conditions The hydrogeologic formations described above (Table 4.10-1) transmit water through a complex system made up of layers of highly permeable units of sand and gravel (aquifers) often separated by layers of low-permeability units of silts and clays or shale (aquitards). The aquifers are primarily recharged (refilled) by precipitation infiltrating into the soil and the amount of annual rainfall directly influences the volume of groundwater recharge the Basin receives. For instance, in a drought year like Water Year 2014 when annual rainfall in Santa Cruz was 14.4 inches, Basin recharge was estimated at 800 afy, while in Water Year 2016, with 32.6 inches of rainfall, the groundwater aquifers were estimated to receive 11,300 afy of recharge. However, groundwater conditions where the Project is planned in the Purisima Formation near the coast do not vary in response to these year-to-year changes in recharge due to distance from the recharge areas and proximity to the coastal boundary (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). Prior to human settlement in the Soquel-Aptos region, groundwater likely flowed from the inland hills toward the ocean. These natural flow patterns have been disrupted by areas of depressed groundwater levels that have developed around municipal, industrial, domestic, and agricultural pumping wells due to many years of groundwater pumping. In certain areas within the Basin, groundwater pumping draws groundwater down around pumping wells, creating what is referred to as cones of depression. In some areas, these cones of depression have extended to the coastline Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater (District, 2010). When groundwater is pumped from a basin faster than it is recharged, a basin overdraft occurs. Long term groundwater production in excess of what has been naturally recharged through rainfall has caused overdraft in the Basin, which has led to a risk of seawater intrusion along the coast. The District has been addressing overdraft for many years through continually managing its groundwater pumping distribution with the intent of increasing groundwater levels throughout the District, especially along the coast where there is a threat of seawater intrusion. Public awareness of water conservation has grown in recent years from ongoing outreach and education programs by local water agencies but also from the State of California with Governor Brown’s 2014 proclamation of drought emergency, his subsequent 2015 executive order for restrictions to achieve 25 percent reduction in statewide potable use, and a substantial statewide conservation marketing effort (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). With the statewide drought awareness and call for conservation, groundwater production in the overall Basin was low in the 2015-2016 water year with a total municipal production for the Basin of 4,121 afy in 2015 and 3,928 afy in 2016. This was the Basin’s lowest municipal production since 1977. This continued into 2017 as it was a very wet year. The District’s groundwater production of 3,155 afy and 3,094 afy in 2015 and 2016 were the lowest annual totals since 1972. The District’s pumping reduction in 2015-2016 of 24 percent appears to be related to its declaration of a Stage 3 water shortage emergency in 2014 and the support of the statewide outreach campaign that prescribed a drought curtailment target of 25 percent. The SCWD extracts groundwater from the Purisima A unit and has a larger annual variation of groundwater production because it depends on the availability of surface water. The SCWD pumping in calendar years 2015 and 2016 was 483 acre‐feet and 505 acre‐feet, respectively, which is less than its planned amount of 520 acre‐feet per year during non-critically dry years. 3 Pumping over these two calendar years was also the lowest consecutive years of pumping since 2005 and 2006. The CWD pumping from the Purisima F unit /Aromas was 391 and 384 afy in 2015 and 2016, respectively. This represents a 29 percent reduction from 2012‐2013 before CWD declared a water shortage consistent with the state’s 2014 request for voluntary 20 percent reduction. CWD pumping had not been below 400 afy per year since 1985 (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). In 2017, the District has noticed an increase in water use with total production at 3,325 acre-feet (2,098 acre-feet from the Purisima Formation and 1,227 acre-feet from the Aromas Formation. Groundwater Levels and Monitoring The following discussions of groundwater levels and trends focus primarily on the Purisima A/AA unit and BC unit as those are the units of concern for the Project because the Project would be recharging these aquifer units, creating a seawater barrier, and they are susceptible to the threat of seawater intrusion. Groundwater flows from areas of high hydraulic head 4 to areas of low hydraulic head, and the steeper the groundwater gradient, the faster groundwater will move toward the low-potential 3 4 The SCWD pumping season spans two water years as the pumping season typically extends from April‐May to November‐December, so the City manages pumping based on calendar year totals. Head or hydraulic head is the fluid potential for flow through a porous media. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater areas. Monitoring groundwater elevations over time provides essential information on declining groundwater elevations associated with overdraft conditions. Monitoring also helps to determine whether saltwater is entering the coastal areas of the Basin, as groundwater elevations below sea level indicate the potential for seawater intrusion. The District, CWD, and SCWD maintain a network of wells within the Basin for monitoring water quality and water levels. The monitoring wells are shown on Figure 4.10-4. The monitoring network covers the units within the Purisima Formation that are the source of water supply for the western two-thirds of the District’s service area; and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer, which overlies the Purisima Formation in the eastern third of the District’s service area, is the source of water supply for that portion of District’s service area (District, 2016). The results of the groundwater monitoring are compiled annually and were most recently presented in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Management Biennial Review and Report Water Years 20152016 (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b) for the hydrogeologic units used for water supplies by District and other groundwater users in the Basin. Within the units of the Purisima Formation, the groundwater elevation contours show that groundwater generally flows from the northern hills toward areas of depressed water levels in the vicinity of the production wells; these depressed levels have been caused by high rates of groundwater extraction at the production wells, ultimately leading to the formation of a trough center anchored by multiple water supply wells that are generally screened in the same unit (District, 2010). The contours additionally suggest that a portion of the groundwater pumped by the District wells is derived from beneath Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This same general pattern of groundwater flow has persisted for years, except that recent monitoring results from Purisima A unit indicate a shallower trough compared with observations from previous years. Spring 2016 groundwater contours for the Purisima A/AA unit show that coastal groundwater levels in Unit A were generally higher with limited depressions inland of the coast around District pumping wells, while fall coastal groundwater levels in the A‐unit had defined pumping depressions inland of the coast around District wells. Groundwater trends in the Purisima area (primarily the A/AA unit) have slightly declined or stabilized over the last five years but the Purisima A unit nearest the Project, (Wells SC-3A and SC-5A) have increased with accelerated recovery in the last 5 years. Spring and fall 2016 coastal groundwater levels in the BC‐unit experienced an acceleration of recovery in early 2016 that was maintained for the remaining part of the year. Pumping depressions around District production wells are shown but are much smaller than in previous years (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). Water levels in the Aromas Red Sands aquifer are characterized by a moderate seaward gradient in upland areas that transition to a relatively flat gradient throughout the coastal plain. Groundwater in the aquifer generally flows from the hills toward the Monterey Bay, but appears to be almost entirely captured by municipal, private, and agricultural wells in the coastal plain area (District, 2010). The coastal groundwater level trend in the Aromas wells area has generally been stable or has increased over the last five years, while wells further inland have shown declines over the last five years (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Protective Groundwater Elevations Protective groundwater elevations represent the groundwater level that is necessary to raise groundwater high enough to establish or maintain a seaward groundwater gradient to prevent seawater from moving inland. When groundwater levels are below protective elevations, there is a higher likelihood that inland groundwater flows from Monterey Bay can be induced, resulting in seawater contamination of groundwater production wells. Recovery of the Basin would be realized and overdraft would be eliminated when coastal groundwater levels rise to protective elevations at all coastal wells (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). The mechanics and characteristics of seawater intrusion are discussed below under the heading Groundwater Quality. The District and SCWD have established protective groundwater elevations in coastal monitoring wells to protect the Purisima A unit in the western portion of the Basin from further seawater intrusion. The locations of the monitoring wells are shown on Figure 4-10-4. But the Purisima units remain at risk because groundwater levels remain below the SCWD and District’s protective elevations in four (4) of the six (6) coastal monitoring well locations in the Purisima A unit. The SCWD and District pumping in the Western Purisima were low compared to the historical average, leading to increasing groundwater levels at all coastal monitoring wells in the area (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). The District established protective groundwater elevations in coastal monitoring wells to protect the Purisima BC‐unit and DEF‐unit from seawater intrusion. Average coastal groundwater levels in the District’s BC unit monitoring well SC‐9C remained below protective elevations in Water Years 2015 and 2016 but was above protective elevations in Water Year 2017. The Purisima BC and DEF‐units would be at risk for seawater intrusion if average coastal groundwater levels drop below protective elevations. Purisima BC and DEF‐units have showed recovery in recent years after historically low production from 2009 through 2017. The District reduced pumping from the Purisima BC and DEF units, which accelerated groundwater recovery in the 2015 and 2016 water years (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). The District has revised its established protective groundwater elevations in coastal monitoring wells to protect the Aromas area from further seawater intrusion. Average groundwater levels are above protective elevations in the northwest part of the Aromas area coastline at monitoring well SC‐A1, where the groundwater levels at these wells have been above protective elevations for most of the monitoring record. In the Seascape area, average groundwater levels remain below protective elevations at monitoring well SC‐A8A. Average groundwater levels at monitoring wells SC‐A2 and SC‐A3 were above protective elevations in Water Year 2016. Groundwater levels at monitoring well SC‐A3A rose above the protective elevation in the last five years because of reduced pumping in the eastern portion of the District and because the Altivo and Sells wells are not currently operated. Maintaining groundwater levels above protective elevation at monitoring well SC‐A4 located in the Pajaro Valley Sub‐basin may depend on the volume of pumping by smaller groundwater systems and private well owners (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). Overall, long‐term groundwater recovery and the magnitude of recovery that occurred through 2017 allowed 10 of 13 wells to meet protective elevations set by the City of Santa Cruz and the District. However, as three wells still have average groundwater levels below protective Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater elevations, the Basin is not fully recovered and is still considered to be in long‐term overdraft (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017c). Stream-Aquifer Interactions Surface water features such as streams and lakes are connected hydraulically to shallow, unconfined aquifers. Groundwater discharge to creeks occurs in areas where the water table intersects and flows into the creek channel. Water discharged from groundwater to surface streams is known as baseflow and is an important source of continual creek flow between rainstorms. The magnitude of baseflow that is delivered to a perennial creek depends on the hydrogeologic characteristics of the underlying water-bearing aquifers, the connectivity of the deeper aquifer zones to the shallower water table zones, and the amount of groundwater pumping in all aquifers. Soquel Creek surface water is in hydraulic communication with shallow groundwater that is not representative of deeper groundwater in the Purisima A and AA units. Hydrogeologic studies have not demonstrated long-term trends or pumping-related baseflow depletion in Soquel Creek. However, aquifer tests and groundwater gradients in the groundwater system near the District’s existing Main Street well showed that downward leakage from the shallow aquifer to deep aquifers pumped by the District’s wells does occur. Groundwater pumping at the Main Street well may influence shallow groundwater levels but any effects of Main Street well pumping on streamflow in Soquel Creek has limited temporal and areal extent. Pumping at the O’Neill Ranch and SCWD’s Beltz No.12 wells shows no effect on shallow groundwater levels along Soquel Creek and therefore, no observable effect on streamflow in Soquel Creek (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017b). The District has concluded that pumping from deep wells could potentially decrease the amount of baseflow available to Soquel Creek and other streams within the study area, but that the effect is overwhelmed by other factors such as; logging, grazing, rural and urban development, riparian evapotranspiration, 5 erosion and sedimentation of streambeds, and effects of shallow groundwater pumping from sources above the deeper Purisima Formation aquifers. The significant finding from previous studies is that baseflow is affected by several factors, including groundwater pumping, but that the effect of pumping would need to be equal to or greater than the effects of other factors to be detectable in historic data (District, 2010). Groundwater Quality Groundwater quality in the Basin is influenced by several factors, including natural geochemical properties and flow within the different hydrogeologic formations, groundwater pumping and the presence of seawater intrusion, land use practices, and accidental releases of contaminants into the environment. Historically, the issues with groundwater quality for drinking water resources have included impacts from potential seawater intrusion, nitrate contamination, naturally occurring elevated metals, and anthropogenic 6 contamination. Groundwater drawn from the 5 6 Evapotranspiration is the loss of water to the atmosphere by evaporation from plants and soil surface bodies. Environmental pollution and pollutants originating from human activity. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Basin does not regularly exceed any primary drinking water standards (see the Regulatory Framework section, below, for a description of federal and state drinking water standards). A few naturally occurring constituents exceed secondary drinking water standards 7, and other naturally occurring constituents are closely monitored even though they remain below established drinking water standards (District, 2010). California’s State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Division of Drinking Water (DDW), in accordance with Section 11672.60 of the California Health and Safety Code, implements the Drinking Water Source Assessment Program (DWSAP) to protect sources of drinking water (see description in Regulatory Framework, below). A DWSAP assessment lists possible contaminating activities and the susceptibility of drinking water supplies to the identified contamination threats. In 2014-15, the District completed its source water assessment for its District wells tapped within the underlying Purisima Formation and Aromas aquifer. Assessment for the Polo Grounds Wells and the Aptos Jr. High Well were completed in 2011. Aromas aquifer supplies are most vulnerable to agricultural contaminants, on-site residential septic systems and potential leakage from sewer lines. Purisima Formation supplies are most vulnerable to contamination from dry cleaners, historical and active automobile gas stations, sewer collection systems, home manufacturing, grazing, known contaminant plumes, photo processing/printing establishments, and utility stations/maintenance areas. The District monitors potential contamination near its wells and works with other agencies to proactively protect the quality of its groundwater resources (District, 2010). Seawater Intrusion Seawater intrusion is the principal water quality concern in the Basin. Average groundwater levels below protective and target elevations in coastal monitoring wells in the productive units of the Purisima Formation result in an ongoing risk of seawater intrusion into those units. This section describes the mechanics of seawater intrusion and discusses the current condition of seawater intrusion in the District. The hydrologic zone along the coast where fresh groundwater and ocean saltwater meet is referred to as the saltwater/freshwater interface and is comprised of brackish (a mixture of freshwater and saltwater) to saline water (water with high concentrations of salt). Aquifers that are not actively pumped or are otherwise in a predevelopment condition provide a certain amount of freshwater outflow at the coast. Because this ocean outflow exerts seaward hydraulic pressure, it holds seawater at equilibrium offshore from the coast and hinders its onshore advancement. In unconfined coastal aquifers, denser saltwater extends landward along the base of the aquifer as a wedge under the freshwater flowing to the ocean. The freshwater in an unconfined aquifer discharges readily offshore into the ocean; because of the wedge-shaped boundary, the saltwater/freshwater interface can stay relatively close to shore. The deepest portion of the saltwater wedge may extend beneath the land surface, even when ample freshwater is flowing to the ocean. In confined and semi-confined aquifer systems, like that found in the Purisima Formation aquifers, the location of the saltwater/freshwater interface can vary depending on the 7 Secondary drinking water standards represent non-mandatory water quality guidelines that assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color and odor. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater conditions and characteristics of the particular units. Because freshwater discharge to the ocean varies with each unit, the resultant saltwater/freshwater interface can be complex, developing as a function of the hydraulic pressures and ability of the aquifer to transmit water. There are three major mechanisms for seawater intrusion in the Basin. The first mechanism occurs in shallow aquifers when the cone of depression of coastal wells reaches the shoreline, pulling saltwater into the well. The second mechanism occurs in deeper aquifers when pumping depressions extend far offshore until reaching pathways such as offshore outcrops, paleochannels, 8 faults, or fractures. The third mechanism occurs when the saltwater/freshwater interface migrates landward in response to the decline of onshore groundwater levels. The first two mechanisms describe the capture of seawater from the salty surface water body, and the third represents a saltwater wedge migrating along the aquifer base. An interface can also be drawn locally upward from beneath a pumping well in a process called “upconing.” Increasing concentrations of chloride and total dissolved solids 9 (TDS) in groundwater are the primary indicators of potential seawater intrusion within the Basin, which is why the coastal monitoring wells are sampled at least twice a year for these constituents. The District’s coastal monitoring wells have detected seawater intrusion along the coast of the Aromas area and long-term water quality trends indicates that it has continued to advance over the last 25 years. Elevated chloride and TDS concentrations have been detected in shallow monitoring wells in the Seacliff area (Purisima DEF unit), shallow monitoring wells in the Pleasure Point area (Purisima A unit), and deeper monitoring wells near the mouth of Aptos Creek (Purisima B unit) (District, 2010). Previous instances of seawater intrusion have also occurred where Purisima DEF and F units are exposed at the coast. These instances were caused by drawdown during a former District operation and at the Seacliff Well, which appeared to pull a saltwater wedge inland prior to its retirement in the mid-1980s. The saltwater wedge was halted, and the saltwater/freshwater interface stabilized when the Hillcrest and Seacliff Wells were taken offline (District, 2010). Evidence of historical seawater intrusion, when combined with depressed groundwater elevations, represents a significant potential for seawater intrusion to occur in the Purisima Formation. Airborne Electromagnetics Seawater Intrusion Study In May 2017, an airborne electromagnetics survey was conducted along the coastal boundary of the District and included portions of the Pajaro Valley and Santa Cruz Mid County groundwater basins (Ramboll, 2018). The survey used an antenna suspended from a helicopter to generate a magnetic field, which was detected by the receiver. The received signal was then converted to resistivity data and that data was inverted to produce output that is viewable as a threedimensional image. The output data identified water with resistivity signatures characteristic of freshwater, brackish water (a mixture of fresh water and seawater), and seawater. The Sky-TEM data and post-analysis confirmed that seawater was identified to be just offshore along the entire 8 9 Paleochannels are channels that formed millions of year ago in response to geologic and tectonic changes along the coast. “Total Dissolved Solids” refers to the concentration of all inorganic and organic substances dissolved in water. TDS, used as a quantitative measure of water quality, is commonly expressed in milligrams per liter or parts per million. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater coastline that was flown (from Pleasure Point to La Selva Beach) in the Purisima Formation aquifer units where high salt concentrations have not been previously measured onshore. Figure 4.10-5 shows the relationship between saltwater in the aquifer units offshore and the risk levels of eventual seawater intrusion for protected aquifers. 10 This information is based on Water Year 2017 groundwater level averages with the size of the circles representing risk of seawater intrusion. The data obtained from the Sky-TEM survey represents a moment in time and does not indicate the rate at which the interface between salty and freshwater is advancing landward through the underground aquifers. However, the proximity of the interface to the coast emphasizes the need to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan that would recover and maintain groundwater levels to prevent onshore seawater intrusion and provide justification to set goals for groundwater level recovery sooner than the SGMA deadline of 2040 to achieve sustainability (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018a). Nitrate Contamination Nitrate is a naturally occurring compound that is formed in the soil when nitrogen and oxygen combine. Common sources of nitrogen in the soil are fertilizers, livestock waste, and septic systems. High levels of nitrate can cause health problems for infants such as the dangerous condition called methaemoglobinaemia, 11 also known as “blue baby syndrome.” Elevated concentrations of nitrate have been detected in the La Selva Beach area of the Aromas aquifer that are above the State of California Maximum Contaminant Level 12 for drinking water [10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) as nitrogen, N]. Nitrite concentrations in the Sells Well was 45 mg/L in 2009-2010 and the well was subsequently taken offline. Nitrate contamination in the Aromas aquifer is most likely due to runoff and leaching of fertilizers, infiltration of sewage from septic tank systems, and erosion of natural deposits (District and CWD, 2007). Metals The Purisima Formation contains elevated concentrations of naturally-occurring iron and manganese 13 above the secondary drinking water standards of 0.30 and 0.050 parts per billion (ppb) and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer contains naturally-occurring hexavalent chromium (chromium 6). 14 Wells within the District’s service areas known to contain elevated concentrations of iron/manganese or arsenic are generally operated in tandem with a single treatment facility and the constituents are removed prior to the distribution of drinking water to customers. In response to a previously established drinking water standard of 10 ppb for chromium 6 adopted by the State of California in 2014, the District constructed and operated a 10 The risks of seawater intrusion shown on this figure are based on the Ghyben-Herzberg calculation, which are analytical solutions derived to approximate the intrusion behavior of saltwater and the fresh water it is intruding. 11 Methaemoglobinaemia is a rare, potentially fatal blood disorder in which the blood is unable to carry oxygen to cells in the body. The disorder may be caused by high levels of nitrates in drinking water. 12 Maximum Contaminant Levels represent the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. 13 Both iron and manganese occur naturally in the Purisima Formation from the dissolution of metals within the aquifer. Neither constituent poses a health concern but can result in undesirable aesthetics, causing discoloration of the water. 14 Chromium is a naturally occurring metallic element that can be found in water, soil, and rocks. Hexavalent chromium is known to cause cancer in humans and is likely to be more toxic when inhaled than when ingested. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Technical Memorandum Management Implications of SkyTEM Seawater Intrusion Results Page 6 Figure 2: Pumped Aquifer Units, Risk for Seawater Intrusion Based on Water Year 2017 Groundwater Levels and Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Shallowest Aquifer Unit with Salty Water Just Offshore Figure 4.10-5 Pumped Aquifer Units, Risk for Seawater Intrusion Based on Water Year 2017 Groundwater Levels and Shallowest Aquifer Unit with Salty Water Just Offshore HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 Franklin Street, Suite 501  Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater temporary chromium 6 treatment facility to meet the standard (District, 2016a). However, as of September 11, 2017, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for chromium 6 was invalidated and no longer in effect due to the May 31, 2017 ruling by the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The State is in the process of re-evaluating the MCL for chromium 6 and expects to re-issue an MCL within 2 years. Concentrations of chromium 6 are elevated within limited areas of the District service area but are below the California MCL for total chromium 15 of 0.050 mg/L (50 ppb). Arsenic 16 has also been detected at low concentrations in the Purisima Formation, but levels remain below the primary drinking water standard of 0.010 mg/L (10 ppb). Other Contaminants of Concern Sources of anthropogenic contaminants within the Basin include fuels, methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Fuels are released into the environment through leaking underground storage tanks and other accidental spills. MTBE was used as a fuel oxygenate until the mid-1990s when it was discovered that, due to its high water solubility, the substance is extremely mobile once introduced to the groundwater system. PCE is a common dry-cleaning solvent. These contaminants have been identified within Basin. Most notable is the detection of hydrocarbons and PCE near the City of Santa Cruz Live Oak Well Field (District, 2010). For specific information on existing conditions related to contaminated soil and shallow groundwater in the vicinity of the proposed well sites, see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. The chemical 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) is a man-made chemical found in agricultural soil fumigants (pesticides). Its use over many years allowed it to leach into the soil and enter the groundwater in some areas. However, TCP has not been detected in the District wells that currently supply drinking water. The maximum amount that is allowed in drinking water (MCL) is 5 parts per trillion (ppt). The District’s Country Club Well, which was in an agricultural area during the 1950s and 1960s, had a detected average TCP level of 8.7 ppt and a maximum of 15 ppt. As of July 2017, Country Club Well was shut down while the District plans to install a facility to treat and remove TCP. As discussed further in the Regulatory Framework and Impact 4-10.3, below, compounds of emerging concern (CEC) is a broad term that may include a wide range of pollutants, (endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceutically active compounds, and personal care products) which are common at very low (trace) levels in modern wastewater streams and conventional water supplies. CECs are present in municipal wastewater frequently below known health standards, and treatment by advanced water purification and drinking water facilities reduce CEC concentrations further (Carollo, 2017). Several CEC’s were detected in the groundwater in the District’s Sells and Altivo groundwater supply wells. The CEC concentrations detected were far below Health Screening Levels for these compounds and comparable to concentrations in water that has been treated through advanced water purification processes (Carollo, 2017). 15 While no state or federal drinking water standards currently exist for hexavalent chromium (chromium VI), there is a state drinking water standard for total chromium, which assumes a mixture of chromium III and chromium VI. 16 Arsenic detections in SqCWD wells are most likely associated with the natural occurrence of arsenic resulting from the depositional and geochemical conditions in the Soquel-Aptos coastal environment. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater 4.10.3 Regulatory Framework This section provides an overview of federal, state, and local environmental laws, policies, plans, regulations, and guidelines (referred to generally as “regulatory requirements”) relevant to groundwater resources. Federal and State Regulations Federal Antidegradation Policy Section 303 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. § 1313) requires that states adopt water quality standards for waters of the United States within their applicable jurisdiction. Such water quality standards must include, at a minimum, (1) designated uses for all waterbodies within their jurisdiction, (2) water quality criteria necessary to protect the most sensitive of the uses, and (3) antidegradation provisions. Antidegradation policies and implementing procedures must be consistent with the regulations in 40 C.F.R. § 131.12. Antidegradation is an important tool that states use in meeting the CWA requirement that water quality standards protect public health and welfare, enhance water quality, and meet the objective of the Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity” of the nation’s waters. The CWA requires that states adopt antidegradation policies and identify implementation methods to provide three levels of water quality protection to maintain and protect (1) existing water uses and the level of water quality, (2) high quality waters, and (3) outstanding national resource waters. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Anti-Degradation Policy In 1968, the SWRCB adopted an anti-degradation policy (policy) aimed at maintaining the high quality of waters in California through the issuance of Resolution No. 68-16 (“Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California”). They apply to both surface waters and groundwaters (and thus groundwater replenishment projects), protect both existing and potential beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater, and are incorporated into Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Water Quality Control Plans (e.g., Basin Plans). The policy requires that existing high water quality be maintained to the maximum extent possible, but allows lowering of water quality if the change is “consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated use of such water (including drinking), and will not result in water quality less than prescribed in policies.” The policy also stipulates that any discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to “meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge to ensure that (a) pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained.” The policy prohibits actions that tend to degrade the quality of surface and groundwater. The RWQCBs oversee this policy (SWRCB, 1968). The anti-degradation policy states that: • Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies. • Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters must meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State will be maintained. SWRCB has interpreted Resolution No. 68-16 to incorporate the federal anti-degradation policy, which applies if a discharge that began after November 28, 1975 would lower existing surface and groundwater quality. This policy would apply to the treated water to be recharged into the Project wells because this element would be required to comply with the state resolution maintaining the existing water quality. One of the requirements for a recycled water project is that it must be compatible with State Board Resolution 68-16 and the Recycled Water Policy (see below, under the header ‘Recycled Water Policy’). This can be evaluated on a project-specific localized impacts basis or can be evaluated in terms of the utilization of basin-wide groundwater assimilative capacity. Utilization of more than 10% of basin-wide assimilative capacity for compliance with anti-degradation policy has typically required a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan for the basin or a similar level of evaluation (Brown and Caldwell, 2018). Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California and defines water quality objectives as the limits or levels of water constituents established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses. The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout California, while the Central Coast RWQCB (CCRWQCB) conducts planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The Porter-Cologne Act requires the RWQCB to establish a regional Basin Plan with water quality objectives, while acknowledging that water quality may be changed to some degree without unreasonably affecting beneficial uses. Beneficial uses, together with the corresponding water quality objectives, are defined as standards, per federal regulations. Therefore, the regional Basin Plans form the regulatory references for meeting state and federal requirements for water quality control. Changes in water quality are allowed if the change is consistent with the maximum beneficial use of the State waters, it does not unreasonably affect the present or anticipated beneficial uses, and it does not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the water quality control plans. The Basin Plan regulations also apply to groundwater. The Basin Plan for this location is discussed below in the local regulations subsection. This Act would apply to the recharge wells because they would have the potential to affect water quality and beneficial uses in the Basin through injection of purified water. Thus, the Project would be required to comply with the Basin Plan water quality objectives established by the CCRWQCB Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater to protect the beneficial uses of the groundwater. This is discussed in the Local Regulations subsection below. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) was signed into California State law by Governor Jerry Brown on September 16, 2014 and became effective January 1, 2015. SGMA gives local agencies the authority to customize groundwater sustainability plans to their regional economic and environmental needs and manage groundwater in a sustainable manner to protect groundwater resources. SGMA provides a definition of sustainable groundwater management and has established a framework for local agencies to develop plans and implement sustainable management strategies to manage groundwater resources, prioritizes basins (ranked as high- and medium-priority) with the greatest problems (i.e., the undesirable results as discussed below), and sets a 20-year timeline for implementation. The Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin is considered a high priority basin subject to critical conditions of overdraft. The DWR and the SWRCB are the lead state agencies responsible for developing regulations and reporting requirements necessary to carry out SGMA. DWR sets basin prioritization, basin boundaries, and develops regulations for groundwater sustainability plans. The SWRCB is responsible for fee schedules, data reporting, probationary designations and interim sustainability plans (DWR, 2016). SGMA requires the creation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency for medium- and highpriority groundwater basins in accordance with Water Code §10723 et seq. Each Groundwater Sustainability Agency is to develop and implement a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in accordance with Water Code §10727 et seq. The GSP would describe how users of groundwater within the Basin would manage and use groundwater in a manner that can be sustainably maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results. SGMA defines undesirable results as follows: • Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply • Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion • Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies • Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses • Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water The Project would affect groundwater management in the Basin because it would be replenishing the aquifers with purified water and altering pumping distribution among the District’s 17 groundwater supply wells. As one of the objectives of the Project is to replenish groundwater and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater raise groundwater levels near the coast to impede inland advance of seawater intrusion, the Project may have a positive contribution to the sustainable management of groundwater. As required by SGMA, local stakeholders (including Soquel Creek Water District, Central Water District, City of Santa Cruz, County of Santa Cruz, and private well representatives) formed the MGA to develop and implement a plan to manage the use of water within the Basin, address issues with critical overdraft, and bring the Basin into sustainability by 2040. Currently, the MGA is working to create a GSP by January 2020 designed to bring the Basin into SGMA compliance by 2040 (MGA, 2017). State Water Resources Control Board Policies Related to Groundwater Sources of Drinking Water Policy The Sources of Drinking Water Policy (adopted as Resolution 88-63) designates the municipal and domestic supply (MUN) beneficial use for all surface waters and groundwater except for those waters: (1) with total dissolved solids exceeding 3,000 mg/L, (2) with contamination that cannot reasonably be treated for domestic use, (3) where there is insufficient water supply, (4) in systems designed for wastewater collection or conveying or holding agricultural drainage, or (5) regulated as a geothermal energy producing source. Resolution 88-63 addresses only designation of water as drinking water source; it does not establish objectives for constituents that threaten source waters designated as MUN. Recycled Water Policy The Recycled Water Policy was adopted by the SWRCB in February 2009 and was subsequently amended in 2013 to include monitoring for CECs (discussed below) for groundwater replenishment projects. The Recycled Water Policy was a critical step in creating uniformity in how RWQCBs were individually interpreting and implementing the Anti-degradation Policy in Resolution 68-16 for water recycling projects, including groundwater replenishment projects such as the Project. The critical provisions in the Policy related to groundwater replenishment projects are discussed in the following subsections. Constituents of Emerging Concern As defined in the SWRCB Recycled Water Policy, CECs are chemicals in personal care products, pharmaceuticals including antibiotics, antimicrobials, agricultural and household chemicals, hormones, food additives, transformation products and inorganic constituents. These chemicals have been detected throughout the nation in trace amounts in surface water, wastewater, recycled water, and groundwater. The Recycled Water Policy includes monitoring requirements for six CECs for subsurface application groundwater replenishment projects using recycled water, four of which are used as health-based indicators and others serving as performance-based indicators. In addition to the Recycled Water Policy, the SWRCB regulations for groundwater replenishment projects with recycled water requires a project sponsor in the project’s Engineering Report to recommend CECs for monitoring in the recycled water and potentially in the groundwater. For recharge projects using recycled water that has been treated using RO and an advanced oxidation process (AOP), the monitoring requirements in the Recycled Water Policy only apply to recycled water prior to and after RO/AOP treatment (i.e., no groundwater sampling). None of the CECs currently have regulatory limits. The Recycled Water Policy includes monitoring trigger levels (MTLs) for the four health-based CEC indicators and response actions to be taken by Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater groundwater replenishment project sponsors based on monitoring results compared to the MTLs. The MTLs were based on Drinking Water Equivalent Levels. A Drinking Water Equivalent Level represents the amount of a CEC in drinking water that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable risk (MRWPCA and MPWMD, 2016). The following CECs from the Recycled Water Policy are those with health-based indicators, treatment/performance-based indicators, or both as indicated below in parentheses. • 17-β-estradiol – steroid hormone (health-based indicator) • Caffeine – stimulant (health-based and performance-based indicator) • N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) – disinfection byproduct (health-based and performancebased indicator) [Note: NDMA’s current California Notification Level (NL) is 0.01μg/L] • Triclosan – antimicrobial (health-based indicator) • N,N-diethyl-metatoluamide (DEET) – ingredient in personal care products (performancebased indicator) • Sucralose – food additive (performance-based indicator) Salt and Nutrient Management Plans In recognition that some groundwater basins in the state contain salts and nutrients that exceed or threaten to exceed Basin Plan groundwater objectives, and that some Basin Plans do not have adequate implementation measures to achieve compliance, the Recycled Water Policy includes provisions for managing salts and nutrients on a regional or watershed basis through development of Salt and Nutrient Management Plans (SNMP) rather than imposing requirements on individual recycled water projects (which had been the practice prior to adoption of the Recycled Water Policy). SNMPs were to be developed for every groundwater basin/sub-basin with high salts and nutrients by May 2014 (May 2016 with a RWQCB-approved extension). SNMPs were not prepared for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin because it does not contain salts and nutrients in excess of Basin Plan objectives. If a SNMP was not prepared for a basin underlying a project or a project is using a limited amount of the available assimilative capacity (described below), the Recycled Water Policy requires the preparation of a dedicated anti-degradation evaluation. As discussed below, an anti-degradation evaluation was prepared for the Project. Anti-degradation and Assimilative Capacity Assimilative capacity is the ability for groundwater to receive contaminants without detrimental effects to human health or other beneficial uses. It is typically derived by comparing background ambient chemical concentrations in groundwater to the concentrations of the applicable Basin Plan groundwater quality objectives. The difference between the ambient concentration and groundwater quality objective is the available assimilative capacity. The Recycled Water Policy establishes two assimilative capacity thresholds in the absence of an adopted SNMP. A groundwater replenishment project that utilizes less than 10% of the available assimilative capacity in a groundwater basin/sub-basin (or multiple projects utilizing less than 20% of the available assimilative capacity in a groundwater basin/subbasin) are only required to conduct an anti-degradation analysis verifying the use of the assimilative capacity. In the event a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater project or multiple projects utilize more than the designated fraction of the assimilative capacity (e.g., 10% for a single project or 20% for multiple projects), the project proponent must conduct a RWQCB-deemed acceptable (and more elaborate) anti-degradation analysis. The RWQCB has the discretionary authority to allocate assimilative capacity to groundwater replenishment projects. There is a presumed assumption that allocations greater than the Recycled Water Policy thresholds would not be granted without concomitant mitigation or an amendment to the Basin Plan groundwater quality objective to create more assimilative capacity for allocation. Groundwater replenishment projects that utilize advanced treated recycled water will use very little to essentially none of the available assimilative capacity because of the high quality of the water. The Reverse Osmosis (RO) treatment component proposed for the Project provides very high removal percentages for salts and nutrients, eliminating the need to utilize significant basin-wide assimilative capacities. Therefore, the Project carries a low risk of adverse salt and nutrient impacts to groundwater. Consequently, a Project-specific anti-degradation evaluation was assumed to be sufficient to comply with anti-degradation policy, which the District completed for the Project in March 2018 (Brown and Caldwell, 2018). Regional Water Quality Control Board Groundwater Requirements The Recycled Water Policy does not limit the authority of a RWQCB to impose more stringent requirements for groundwater replenishment projects to protect designated beneficial uses of groundwater, provided that any proposed limitations for the protection of public health may only be imposed following regular consultation with the California SWRCB DDW. The Recycled Water Policy also does not limit the authority of a RWQCB to impose additional requirements for a proposed groundwater replenishment project that has a substantial adverse effect on the fate and transport of a contaminant plume (for example those caused by industrial contamination or gas stations), or changes the geochemistry of an aquifer thereby causing the dissolution of naturally occurring constituents, such as arsenic, from the geologic formation into groundwater. These provisions require additional assessment of the impacts of a groundwater replenishment project on areas of contamination in a basin and/or if the quality of the water used for replenishment causes constituents, such as naturally occurring arsenic, to become mobile and impact groundwater. SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) California’s drinking water program was originally created in 1915, when the California State Board of Health established the Bureau of Sanitary Engineering. In 1976, two years after the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed, California adopted its own safe drinking water act (contained in the Health and Safety Code) and adopted implementing regulations (contained in Title 22 California Code of Regulation). The state’s act had two main goals: (1) to continue the state’s drinking water program, and (2) to be the delegated authority (referred to as the “primacy”) by the EPA for enforcement of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. As required by the federal act, California’s program must set drinking water standards that are at least as stringent as the EPA’s standards. In addition, each community water system must monitor for a specified list of contaminants, and the findings must be reported to the state. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater The DDW regulates public water systems, oversees water recycling projects, permits water treatment devices, supports and promotes water system security, and performs a number of other functions. DDW has adopted enforceable primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The MCLs are either based on the federal MCLs or as part of DDW’s own regulatory process. For example, California has an MCL for perchlorate while there is no federal MCL. The MCLs account for not only chemicals' health risks, but also factors such as their detectability and treatability, as well as costs of treatment. Health and Safety Code Section 116365(a) requires a contaminant's MCL to be established at a level as close to its Public Health Goal (PHG) as is technologically and economically feasible, placing primary emphasis on the protection of public health. The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established PHGs. They are concentrations of drinking water contaminants that pose no significant health risk if consumed for a lifetime, based on current risk assessment principles, practices, and methods. OEHHA establishes PHGs pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 116365(c) for contaminants with MCLs, and for those for which MCLs will be adopted. Public water systems use PHGs to provide information about drinking water contaminants in their annual Consumer Confidence Reports. Certain public water systems must provide a report to their customers about health risks from a contaminant that exceeds its PHG and about the cost of treatment to meet the PHG and hold a public hearing on the report. There are also a variety of chemicals of health concern whose occurrence is too infrequent in conventional drinking water sources to justify the establishment of national standards; these are addressed using advisory levels. The DDW, with the assistance of OEHHA, has established notification levels (NLs) and Response Levels for that purpose. If a chemical concentration is greater than its NL in drinking water, the utility that distributes the water must inform its customers and consumers about the presence of the chemical, and about health concerns associated with exposure to it. If a chemical is present in drinking water that is provided to consumers at concentrations greater than the Response Levels (10 to 100 times greater than the NL depending on the toxicological endpoint of the constituent), DDW recommends that the source be taken out of service. Final Groundwater Replenishment with Recycled Water Regulations hereafter, referred to as “Groundwater Replenishment Regulations,” went into effect June 18, 2014 (SWRCB, 2015). The overarching principles taken into consideration by DDW in developing the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations were: • Groundwater replenishment projects are replenishing groundwater basins that are used as sources of drinking water • Control of pathogenic microorganisms should be based on a low tolerable risk that was defined as an annual risk of infection 17 from pathogen microorganisms in drinking water of one in 10,000 (10-4). This risk level is the same as that used for the federal Surface Water Treatment Rule for drinking water 17 There is a difference between infection and disease. Infection, often the first step, occurs when a pathogen enters a body and begins to multiply. Disease occurs when the cells in the body are damaged as a result of the infection and signs and symptoms of an illness appear. Infection necessarily precedes disease, but infection typically only leads to disease in a fraction of cases. Many factors influence the infection-to-disease ratio. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater • Compliance with drinking water standards for regulated chemicals. • Controls for unregulated chemicals • No degradation of an existing groundwater basin used as a drinking water source • Use of multiple barriers to protect water quality and human health • Projects should be designed to identify and respond to a treatment failure. A component of this design acknowledges that groundwater replenishment projects inherently will include storage in a groundwater aquifer and include some natural treatment The key provisions of the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations that apply to subsurface application (e.g., the use of injection or vadose zone wells) that use 100% recycled water for application are summarized in Table 4.10-2. TABLE 4.10-2 SUMMARY OF 2014 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT REGULATIONS Control Mechanism Requirements Source Control Entities that supply recycled water to a groundwater replenishment project must administer a comprehensive source control program to prevent undesirable chemicals from entering wastewater. The source control program must include: (1) an assessment of the fate of DDW and RWQCBspecified contaminants through the wastewater and recycled water treatment systems; (2) provisions for contaminant source investigations and contaminant monitoring that focus on DDW and RWQCBspecified contaminants; (3) an outreach program to industrial, commercial, and residential communities; and (4) an up-to-date inventory of contaminants. Pathogen Control To meet the low tolerable risk level (a basic principle of the regulations), pathogen reduction requirements have been established for treatment of recycled water similar to the approach used for drinking regulations. The Groundwater Replenishment Regulations require a project to achieve a 12log enteric virus reduction, a 10-log Giardia cyst reduction, and a 10-log Cryptosporidium oocyst reduction using at least 3 treatment barriers. To ensure that a barrier is significant, each barrier must achieve at least 1.0-log reduction. No treatment process can be credited with more than a 6-log reduction. The log reductions must be verified using a procedure approved by DDW. Log reduction refers to the reduction of pathogenic microorganism concentrations on a log-scale (e.g., 3 logs is 99.9% removal). Failure to meet the specified reductions requires notification to DDW and RWQB, investigation, and/or discontinuation of recycled water use until a problem is corrected. Trussell et al. (2013) conducted an extensive review of the proposed pathogen reduction requirements in the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations and concluded that the assumptions used to derive the log reductions were conservative and provide a large factor of safety that likely reduces the actual risk of infection below the 10-4 level, particularly for control of the amount of a particular disease present in a community. Nitrogen Control To ensure protection of groundwater, the concentration of total nitrogen in recycled water must meet 10 mg/L before or after recharge. Failure to meet this value requires follow-up sampling, notification to DDW and RWQCB, and/or discontinuation of recycled water use until a problem is corrected. Regulated Chemicals Control The recycled water must meet drinking water MCLs as specified by the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations. Failure to meet MCLs requires follow-up sampling, notification to DDW and RWQCB, and/or discontinuation of recycled water use until the problem is corrected. Unregulated Chemicals Control Monitoring the concentrations and toxicities of thousands of potential organic compounds in any water supply would be an infeasible task. Control of unregulated chemicals for all groundwater replenishment projects using 100% recycled water is accomplished through criteria for full advanced treatment of the recycled water, limits for Total Organic Carbon (TOC) and performance of treatment for CECs. TOC is used as a surrogate for unregulated and unknown organic chemicals. For subsurface application projects (injection and vadose wells), the entire recycled water flow must be treated using RO and AOP. After treatment, the TOC in the recycled water cannot exceed an average of 0.5 mg/L. Specific performance criteria for RO and AOP processes have been included in the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations. Failure to meet the requirements established for a groundwater replenishment project results in notifications to DDW and RWQCB, response actions, and in some cases cessation of the use of recycled water. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater TABLE 4.10-2 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF 2014 GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT REGULATIONS Control Mechanism Requirements Response Retention Time (RRT) The intent of the RRT is to provide time to retain recycled water underground to identify any treatment failure so that inadequately treated recycled water does not enter a potable water system. Sufficient time must elapse to allow for: a response that will protect the public from exposure to inadequately treated water; and provide an alternative source of water or remedial treatment at the wellhead if necessary. The RRT is the aggregate period of time between treatment verification samples or measurements; time to make the measurement or analyze the sample; time to evaluate the results; time to make a decision regarding the appropriate response; time to activate the response; and time for the response to work. The minimum RRT is 2 months but must be justified by the groundwater replenishment project sponsor. Monitoring Program Comprehensive monitoring programs are established for recycled water and groundwater for regulated and unregulated constituents. Operation and Optimization Plan The intent of the plan is to assure that the facilities are operated to achieve compliance with the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations, to achieve optimal reduction of contaminants, and to identify how the project will be operated and monitored. Boundaries Restricting Locations of Drinking Water Wells Project sponsors must establish a “zone of controlled well construction,” which represents the greatest of the horizontal and vertical distances reflecting the underground retention times required for pathogen control or for the RRT. Drinking water wells cannot be located in this zone. Project sponsors must also create a “secondary boundary” representing a zone of potential controlled well construction that may be beyond the zone of controlled well construction, thereby requiring additional study before a drinking water well is drilled. Adequate Managerial and Technical Capability A project sponsor must demonstrate that it possess adequate managerial and technical capability to comply with the regulations. Engineering Report The project sponsor must submit an Engineering Report to DDW and RWQCB that indicates how a groundwater replenishment project will comply with all regulations and includes a contingency plan to insure that no untreated or inadequately treated water will be used. The report must be approved by DDW. Reporting Annual reports must be submitted to DDW, RWQCB, and groundwater providers downgradient of injection wells; the Engineering Report must be updated every 5 years. Alternatives Alternatives to any of the provisions are allowed if: the project sponsor demonstrates that the alternative provides the same level of public health protection; the alternative has been approved by DDW; and an expert panel has reviewed the alternative unless otherwise specified by DDW. Public Hearing The project sponsor must hold a public hearing for a groundwater replenishment project after DDW approves the Engineering Report; based on the Engineering Report, the hearing, and public comments, DDW issues a conditional approval letter to the RWQCB for inclusion in the Waste Discharge Requirements and/or Water Reclamation Requirements issued by the RWQCB. Thus, including the hearing for the RWQCB permit, there are two public hearings for a groundwater replenishment project. Should DDW obtain primacy for issuing groundwater replenishment permits, the RWQCB would provide recommendations and conditions for inclusion in the Waste Discharge Requirements and/or Water Reclamation Requirements and the SWRCB would hold the permit hearing. SOURCE: MRWPCA, in partnership with MPWMD, January 2016. Statewide NPDES General Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges Since February 2016, the District has coverage under the Statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (WQ 2014-0194-DWQ General Order No. CAG140001). As discussed in further detail in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water, the SWRCB is responsible for issuance of NPDES permits for discharges from drinking water systems with 1,000 connections Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater or greater that are regulated by the State Board Division of Drinking Water or a local county department of public health. The Order provides regulatory coverage for short-term or seasonal planned and emergency (unplanned) discharges resulting from a water purveyor’s essential operations and maintenance activities undertaken to comply with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water permitting requirements for providing reliable delivery of safe drinking water. Such discharges include, but are not limited to, discharges from supply wells, transmission systems, water treatment facilities, water distribution systems, and storage facilities. Planned and emergency discharges are required to be regulated by an NPDES permit if the discharges flow into a water of the U.S. Discharges authorized under the Order are determined to not adversely affect or impact beneficial uses of the receiving waters when properly managed through BMPs. For the purposes of the groundwater resources analysis, the NPDES Statewide General permit applies to planned discharges of groundwater during the drilling, construction and development of groundwater monitoring wells or recharge wells. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) The CCRWQCB, under the authority of the California Water Code, is responsible for authorizing and regulating activities that may discharge to surface water or groundwater resources. This authority includes adoption of Basin Plans (Section 13240) with beneficial uses and water quality objectives (both narrative and numeric) to reasonably protect those uses (Section 13050). The Basin Plan also establishes guidelines for water used for irrigation. The Basin Plan for the Central Coast was originally adopted in 1971 and was last amended in 2011. 18 Groundwater beneficial uses for the Basin are listed as agricultural water supply (AGR) and municipal and domestic water (MUN). The Basin Plan has: • For MUN beneficial uses – groundwater criteria for bacteria and DDW primary and secondary MCLs. • For AGR beneficial uses – objectives to protect soil productivity, irrigation, and livestock watering and guidelines to interpret a general narrative objective to prevent adverse effects on the beneficial use. Permit limits for groundwater replenishment projects are set to ensure that groundwater does not contain concentrations of chemicals in amounts that adversely affect beneficial uses or degrade water quality. For some specific groundwater sub-basins, the Basin Plan establishes specific mineral water quality objectives for total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, boron, sodium, and nitrogen. Water Well Standards Under California Water Code Section 231, enacted in 1949, DWR is responsible for developing standards for the protection of well water quality. Authority for enforcing the standards as they apply to the construction, destruction, and modification of water wells rests with the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services. The California Water Code requires contractors that 18 See http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb3/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater construct or destruct water wells to have a C-57 Water Well Contractor’s License, follow DWR well standards, and file a completion report with DWR (Water Code Sections 13750.5 et seq.). The District would obtain the appropriate permits for installation of the new water supply wells and abandonment and destruction of the Monterey Well. Well Completion Reports DWR is responsible for maintaining a file of well completion reports (DWR Form 188), which must be submitted whenever a driller works on a water well. Well completion reports must be filed with DWR within 60 days from the date of the work. Well completion reports may be used by public agencies conducting groundwater studies, provided that the information is kept confidential and is used only for the purpose of conducting the study (Water Code Sections 13751 and 13752). Groundwater Rights In California, water rights involve the right to use water, not the right to own water. While the Water Code implies the existence of groundwater rights, their doctrinal bases and characteristics are essentially the product of the decisions of the courts. There are three types of groundwater rights: Overlying Rights. Subject to certain limitations, property owners above a common aquifer possess a right to the reasonable and beneficial use of a groundwater resource on their own lands overlying the aquifer from which the water is taken. Overlying rights are correlative (related to each other) and overlying users of a common water source are allowed to share the resource on a pro rata basis in times of shortage. Appropriative Rights. Non-overlying uses and public uses, such as municipal uses, are called appropriative uses. Among groundwater appropriators, the “first in time, first in right” priority system applies. Appropriative users are entitled to use the surplus water available after the overlying user’s rights are satisfied. Prescriptive Rights. Prescriptive rights are gained by trespass or unauthorized taking that can yield a title because it was allowed to continue longer than the five year statute of limitations. Claim of a prescriptive water right to non-surplus water by an appropriator must be supported by many specific conditions, including a showing that the pumpage occurred in an open manner, was continuous and uninterrupted for five years, and was under a claim of right. From a water law standpoint, the District possesses appropriate water rights and as a public agency, it has the right to store recharge and to recapture water in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin can be summarized by the following general rules: • The District has the right to recapture water that has been added to the groundwater supply as a result of recharge; • The District has the right to prevent other groundwater producers from extracting the replenished supply, although this could require litigation, and in some cases, adjudication of all rights to the groundwater basin may be necessary to determine rights to the total supply; and • The underground storage and recovery of the groundwater basin cannot substantially interfere with the basin’s native or natural groundwater supply. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Material Injury. Groundwater case law has generally adopted the threshold that “…material injury… turns on the existence of an appreciable diminution in the quantity or quality of water…” (District, 2010) A reasonable definition of “appreciable” in the context of this EIR is if the project would render a nearby well incapable of meeting its: 1. Historically measured maximum daily production level; 2. Historically measured dry-season production levels; or 3. Historically measured annual production levels under drought conditions. Local Regulations California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e) provides that facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water supplies are exempt from local (i.e. city and county) building and zoning ordinances. The proposed facilities evaluated in this EIR all relate exclusively to the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water and are, therefore, legally exempt from local building and zoning ordinances. However, they would not be exempt from the requirements of Local Coastal Programs, if applicable. Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Consistency Review The federal consistency requirement set forth in Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that activities approved or funded by the federal government (e.g., the federally-funded California Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program) that affect any land or water use or natural resource of a state’s coastal zone, must be consistent with the enforceable policies of the state’s federally approved coastal management program. California’s federally approved coastal management program consists of the California Coastal Act, the McAteer-Petris Act, and the Suisun Marsh Protection Act. The California Coastal Commission implements the California Coastal Act and the federal consistency provisions of the CZMA for activities affecting coastal resources outside of San Francisco Bay. Subparts D and F of the federal consistency regulations govern consistency review for activities involving a federal permit and federal funding, respectively. These sections generally require the applicant to provide the subject state agency (e.g., the Coastal Commission) with a brief assessment of potential coastal resources impact and project conformity with the enforceable policies of the management program. The Coastal Commission considers an application for a coastal development permit to satisfy the Subpart D and F conformity assessment requirements. Typically, the Coastal Commission will provide its response (concurrence, conditional concurrence, or objection) in its staff report for the coastal development permit. In cases where the coastal development permit is issued by a local government with a certified local coastal program (LCP), the Coastal Commission will typically provide its response in a letter, following the permit issuance and the completion of any appeals process. California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.) provides for the longterm management of lands within California’s coastal zone boundary. The Coastal Act includes Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater specific policies for management of natural resources and public access within the coastal zone. Of primary relevance to groundwater hydrology and water quality are Coastal Act policies concerning protection of the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters. For example, Article 4 of the Act details policies related to the marine environment, such as biological productivity and water quality. Specifically, and relevant to groundwater hydrology and water quality, the Act requires the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health, to be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, preventing depletion of groundwater supplies (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30231). Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services At the local level, the Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services enforces the well reporting requirements of the California Water Code (Sections 13750.5 et seq.) through enforcement of Title 7, Chapter 7.70, Water Wells, of the Santa Cruz County Code. The Santa Cruz County Environmental Health Services well program provides permitting for the construction, destruction, and repair/modification of all wells, including geothermal heat exchange wells, cathodic protection wells, test wells, and monitoring wells. 4.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides the general criteria to determine the significance of impacts related to groundwater resources and states that implementation of the Project would have a significant impact related to groundwater resources if it would: • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume 19 or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted); • Violate any groundwater quality standards or otherwise degrade groundwater quality. In order to capture the full range of potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed groundwater replenishment project, which involves managed, active groundwater recharge, the following additional criteria have been developed to elaborate on how the Appendix G criteria are applied to the impact analysis of groundwater resources. Implementation of the Project would be considered to have a significant impact associated with groundwater resources if: • Borehole drilling, construction, and development of the recharge wells and monitoring wells 1) permanently draw local groundwater levels down to the extent that the operation of nearby 19 A substantial net deficit in aquifer volume refers to the removal of groundwater from the aquifer at a rate that exceeds natural recharge, such that: 1) groundwater levels are permanently lowered and could not recover to prepumping conditions; 2) production well yields in neighboring wells decline to such a degree that other groundwater users in the basin experience an intolerable decrease in available groundwater supply; or 3) the lowering of groundwater levels results in subsidence and compaction that reduces the available volume of groundwater storage. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater District and non-District production wells are adversely affected, or 2) water generated during well construction degrades ambient groundwater quality or violates groundwater quality standards. • Managed active aquifer recharge of purified water causes unfavorable groundwater conditions in the Basin such that nearby District and non-District wells are damaged, experience substantial loss of yield, or can no longer be operated. • Groundwater quality is degraded or water quality standards are violated by 1) introducing advanced treated wastewater (purified) into the existing groundwater, 2) purified water causing soil leaching of metals and other chemicals from the aquifer materials, or, 3) elevated groundwater levels inducing flows that intersect existing soil and groundwater contamination, or 4) exacerbating seawater intrusion. • Groundwater replenishment causes unfavorable response in surface water resources resulting in increased flooding and hydromodification in local streams. Approach to Analysis The impact analysis considers how recharging purified wastewater into the Purisima A and BC units and redistributing District pumping would affect groundwater conditions in the Basin. The effects considered are those that could cause detrimental environmental consequences to the groundwater resources in the Basin such as reducing the availability of groundwater to other Basin users or degrading the quality of the groundwater. Conversely, as the objective of this Project is to elevate groundwater levels and reduce groundwater pumping in coastal areas with an intent to protect against advancing seawater intrusion, this analysis also considers whether the Project would benefit the groundwater resources in the Basin. Groundwater hydrologists at HydroMetrics WRI, (HydroMetrics) developed the groundwater model and conducted the modeling for various recharge and pumping distribution scenarios. These changes in pumping distributions were developed to reduce groundwater extraction at the coast, to reach protective groundwater elevations, and to increase extraction near the recharge wells. These distributions required changes in future pumping rate schedules for production wells that are already in place. Infrastructure changes associated with changes in the pumping distribution include adding a pump at the existing Aptos Pump Station to increase capacity, and a tie-in with the Quail Run Tank. The technical memorandum completed by HydroMetrics (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018b) provided the primary source document used in the impact analysis of groundwater resources. The EIR team of geologists and hydrologists peer reviewed the groundwater model and its findings and determined it was an appropriate tool for conducting the environmental analysis. The results of the modeling are presented in the HydroMetrics technical memorandum titled, Pure Water Soquel Model Simulation Results (June 22, 2018), which is summarized below and is included as Appendix D, Pure Water Soquel Model Simulation Results, to this EIR. Other HydroMetrics documents reviewed and incorporated into the environmental analysis include Pure Water Soquel Anti-Degradation Analysis – Particle Tracking Model results (February 2018), SqCWD Pumping Distribution for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations – Revision 2 (August, 2017) and Management Implication of SkyTEM Seawater Intrusion Results, March 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Information on water quality of purified water treatment and the presence of CECs and other chemical constituents were provided in two reports prepared by Carollo Engineers: Groundwater Replenishment Feasibility Study, Technical Memorandum No. 2- CEC Removal Through Advanced Treatment (2016) and Groundwater Replenishment Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum No. 1 - Treatment Technology Assessment (2016). Studies used to assess the environmental impacts of the Project on groundwater quality were prepared by Brown and Caldwell and included an assessment of geochemical effects of purified water aquifer recharge (Potential Injection Aquifer Geochemical Characterization, October 2016) and an antidegradation analysis (Pure Water Soquel IPR Anti-Degradation Analysis, March 2018). The Anti-Degradation Study focused on mineral constituents, which is compatible with State Board Resolution 68-16 (Antidegradation Policy) and the Recycled Water Policy. Antidegradation analyses are required by California regulations for all groundwater recharge projects. The Brown and Caldwell studies focused on how the existing groundwater would change if purified water recharge were to occur under the Project and whether the changes would cause adverse water quality affects which would inform post-treatment. Secondary sources of technical and regulatory data and information were derived from relevant regional planning documents and water quality plans, and are included in the Reference section. Application of Groundwater Model The effects of the proposed pumping redistribution and direct injection of purified water was evaluated using the calibrated GSFLOW Model (model) for the Basin that was developed and used by HydroMetrics in its analysis of the effects on groundwater levels in the Purisima and Aromas Red Sands aquifer. The model is the calibrated GSFLOW model developed for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin and was used to run “No-Project” and Project simulations, which included different recharge locations proposed as part of the Project. As described below, the “No-Project” simulation considered the existing conditions at the time of the NOP and the model extends these condition into the future, referred to hence forth as the Projected Existing Conditions. 20 The modeling output projected changes in water levels during the Project period 2023 to 2042 and during the post Project period of 2043 to 2069. The model was used 1) to compare coastal water levels to the protective levels that have been projected as necessary to prevent seawater intrusion, 2) assess whether model results were consistent with estimated well capacities, and 3) evaluate groundwater levels near the recharge wells to assess the effects of the Project on municipal, private and institutional wells. This section summarizes the GSFLOW model simulations, climate scenarios, and pumping distribution assumptions. Additional details are provided in SqCWD Pumping Distributions for Pure Water Soquel Model SimulationsRevision 2, prepared by HydroMetrics (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017a) and the modeling results are provided in Pure Water Soquel Model Simulation Results, also prepared by HydroMetrics (Appendix D). 20 The HydroMetrics Technical Memorandum (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018b), Appendix D, refers to the Projected Existing Conditions Simulation as the “No-Project Simulation.” Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Climate Scenarios The model incorporates climate scenarios to simulate climatic conditions over the 50-year duration of the Project (2022 to 2072). Future climate is difficult to predict so groundwater models are frequently developed to incorporate past climate trends and project them into the future model years. The model uses two scenarios. The first, referred to as the Historic Climate Scenario (historic climate) is based on the climate for water years 1985 to 2015 and is used to project climate over future model years 1 through 32 (see Appendix D, Table 1). The second scenario, referred to as the Future Climate Scenario Based on Historic Catalog (catalog climate) represents future climate change based on preferentially selecting warmer years for a catalog of historic water years from 1909 to 2016 and is used to project climate for water years 1 through 54 (2016-2069) (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017a). The catalog climate scenario assumes that with climate change, there will be more warmer and dryer years when compared to the historic climate between 1985 and 2015 that is represented by the historic climate scenario. The catalog climate simulation accounts for 1.5 feet of sea level rise over the simulation period and the model applies this sea level rise at the offshore model boundary to simulate the effects of the projected sea level rise on groundwater conditions (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018b). Model Simulations HydroMetrics developed six model simulations that were run to compare projected groundwater conditions if the Project was not implemented (Projected Existing Conditions) against future groundwater conditions with the Project. There are two Project simulations: the CabrilloMonterey simulation and the Willowbrook-Monterey simulation. The Project modeling scenarios provide the District with supplemental information on aquifer response to the Project and allows additional planning flexibility. 21 The scenarios were run twice using each the historic and catalog climate scenarios (discussed above). The model simulations are summarized below. Projected Existing Conditions Simulation The Projected Existing Conditions model simulation was developed to represent future groundwater conditions in the Basin if the proposed Project was not implemented and assumes that the District would continue to distribute pumping based on the projected demand presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for SqCWD (District, 2016b). Under existing conditions, the District lacks access to a reliable source of water capable of sustainably meeting existing and future demands. The District needs a supplemental water supply to restore and maintain groundwater levels basin-wide, which is especially important along the coast where it has established protective groundwater elevations to prevent seawater intrusion. According to the analysis supporting the planning goals for the District’s Community Water Plan, the District would need to limit its net average groundwater withdrawals to no more than 2,300 acre-feet per year (afy) to restore groundwater levels to prevent seawater intrusion in 20 years. With net pumping limited to 2,300 afy, the District would experience an estimated shortfall of between 1,000 and 1,600 afy during this time (see Section 6.1.1, Population, Water Supply, and Land 21 Note that the HydroMetrics Technical Memorandum (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018b) refers to the modeled Project scenarios as “Alternative Simulations.” However, all modeled scenarios are variations on use of Project recharge wells that are described in Chapter 3, Project Description, and that could be constructed and operated under the Project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Use). Limiting net pumping to the estimated limit of 2,300 afy is also estimated to achieve basin sustainability by 2040, as mandated by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). For the CEQA analysis of groundwater resources, specifically long-term aquifer response, the Projected Existing Condition extends through the entire duration of the analysis period (2022 to 2072) to represent No-Project conditions. The simulation is a temporal baseline that shows how the groundwater levels in the Basin would or would not change under an assumed District operations scenario for the next 50 years without the Project. This scenario and the Project Scenarios allow for a direct comparison between the aquifer conditions without the Project and the benefits/constraints of the managed recharge and pumping distribution proposed under the Project. The primary assumptions built into the Projected Existing Conditions simulation are listed below. • Cunnison Lane well would come on line in 2026. The proposed Austrian Way well would not be constructed and the Aptos well, Sells well, and Altivo wells would not be brought back into service. • Non-critically dry year pumping by the Garnet, O’Neill Ranch, Main Street, and Rosedale wells would occur consistently throughout the model period. Tannery II well would be pumping consistently but only until the Cunnison Lane well comes on line. • Madeline and Ledyard wells would pump consistently throughout the model period but at a lower rate because the aquifer unit these wells pump from, the Purisima BC unit, already has deep groundwater depressions. • Consistent pumping would continue from the Aptos Junior High and Polo Grounds wells as pumping is permanently shifted away from the coast. • Country Club well is also expected to run consistently throughout the Projected Existing Conditions simulation as this well is in an area of the Aromas that has not experienced seawater intrusion. • Wells that are expected to experience decreased well pumping over the model period due to a decline in demand from drought period curtailment are the Estates well, which is screened in the Purisima A and BC units, the T. Hopkins and Granite wells in the Purisima DEF unit, and the Bonita, San Andreas and Seascape wells in the Purisima F unit and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer. • The currently agreed upon pilot surface water transfer from the SCWD would be delivered to the District’s Service Area 1 (west of Soquel Creek) from November to April during all noncritically dry years (HydroMetrics WRI, 2018b). The transfer reduces groundwater pumping from the Garnet and O’Neill Ranch wells (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017a). • The District assumed that demand would be reduced in drought years due to implementation of District-wide drought period water use curtailment. The Projected Existing Conditions simulation assumes that a drought period curtailment is only applied during critically dry years and achieves 15 percent reduction in the District from April to September. Note that a critically dry year is defined as a year that flows in the San Lorenzo River are below 29,000 afy. Project Simulations Under the Project simulations, pumping distributions in the pre-Project period (2017 – 2022) and the post-Project period (2043 - 2069) are the same as those under the Projected Existing Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Conditions simulation. The development of the Project simulations (2022 – 2042) was based on the need to conduct managed active recharge into the Purisima A and BC units such that the District can increase pumping near the recharge sites, decrease pumping from wells farther from the recharge sites, and decrease the risk of seawater intrusion by increasing groundwater elevations toward protective levels in multiple aquifer units pumped by the District while maintaining production consistent with the demand under the Projected Existing Conditions as presented in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for SqCWD. The Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) would be capable of producing 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd), which equates to approximately 1,500 afy of purified water available for recharge into the Purisima A unit and BC. This is the estimated volume required to offset the portion of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin’s groundwater overdraft attributable to District groundwater pumping. The pumping distribution for the Project assumes two possible recharge scenarios: 1) Cabrillo-Monterey Simulation: managed recharge of up to 500 afy at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and up to 1,000 afy at the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites and, 2) Monterey-Willowbrook Simulation: managed recharge of 500 afy of replenishment at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and 1,000 afy at the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site Managed recharge at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site would replenish the Purisima A unit, while managed recharge at the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites and Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site would replenish both the Purisima A and BC units (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017a). An additional potential recharge location is the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site, which is located approximately 500 feet to the southwest of the Cabrillo College Recharge Sites. Due to its proximity to the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites, for the purposes of the groundwater analysis in the EIR, the effects of recharge at the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site are assumed to be similar to those modeled at the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites. Project Simulation: Cabrillo-Monterey The Cabrillo-Monterey simulation assumes groundwater pumping would increase at the Rosedale well, Cunnison Lane well (when constructed in 2026), Tannery II well, and Estates well. The Rosedale, Cunnison Lane, and Tannery II wells would extract groundwater primarily from the Purisima A unit and the Estates well would extract from the Purisima A and BC units. Pumping distribution for the Cabrillo-Monterey simulations at the Aptos Jr. High, Polo Grounds, and Country Club wells is consistent with the Projected Existing Conditions simulation. Aptos Jr. High and Polo Grounds well operations have recently been added to shift pumping away from the coast. Country Club well pumping is in an area where there has not been seawater intrusion and nearby coastal groundwater levels at monitoring well SC-A1 have been above protective groundwater elevations and recovery should also not be needed in this area. Pumping distributions for the Cabrillo-Monterey simulations reflect decreases in overall demand and the effects of the Cunnison Lane well coming online in 2026. Total groundwater pumping would meet the total demand projected in the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for SqCWD Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater with no planned reduction in critically dry years but there would be some pumping re-distribution during critically dry years. Assumptions for the pilot transfer from the SCWD are consistent with the future climate change Projected Existing Conditions simulation. Both simulations distribute pumping by the SCWD, CWD, and non-municipal water users in the same way as the Projected Existing Conditions simulation. (HydroMetrics WRI, 2017a). Project Simulation: Willowbrook-Monterey The Willowbrook-Monterey simulations are similar to the Cabrillo-Monterey Project simulations except that managed recharge would occur at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site. The Willowbrook-Monterey simulation assumes 500 afy of replenishment at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, which is the same as the CabrilloMonterey simulation, and 1,000 afy at the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site based on information from the Tannery II well, which extracts water from the Purisima A unit. The Willowbrook-Monterey simulation assumes replenishment at Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site in both the Purisima A and BC units. Other than changing the managed active recharge from the Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites to the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, pumping distribution and return flow for the Willowbrook-Monterey simulation is assumed to be the same as the Cabrillo-Monterey simulations. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criterion for the reasons described below: • The Project would not contribute to groundwater degradation by seawater intrusion. One of the primary objectives of the Project is to replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion. The Project proposes to accomplish this through pumping distribution that directs pumping away from the coast and recharging the Purisima A and BC units using purified water. Groundwater modeling was employed to develop the District’s municipal pumping distributions, to identify effective recharge well sites, and determine whether managed active recharge in concert with proposed pumping distributions increased groundwater levels along the coast at or above their protective elevations. Protective elevations refer to the groundwater levels that are necessary to prevent seawater intrusion from occurring in the water supply aquifers inland from the coast. The groundwater modeling of the Project scenarios suggests that in most wells, protective elevations would be achieved. In many cases, the projected existing conditions simulations show that if the Project was not implemented, protective elevations would not be achieved into the future. The modeling also showed that projected existing conditions groundwater levels decline substantially after active recharge ceases but groundwater levels remain at or above the protective levels, in some cases higher than they would be under the existing conditions. Groundwater modeling shows that achieving protective levels along the coast and recharging the Basin is viable and beneficial to the District. As the Project would prevent future seawater intrusion rather than induce it, this issue is not discussed further. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.10-3. The detailed impact discussion follows. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-37 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater TABLE 4.10-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – HYDROLOGY RESOURCES – GROUNDWATER Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.10-1: Borehole drilling, construction and development of the recharge wells and monitoring wells would not permanently draw local groundwater levels down to the extent that the operation of nearby District and non-District production wells are adversely affected, nor would water generated during well construction degrade ambient groundwater quality or violate groundwater quality standards. LS Impact 4.10-2: Managed active aquifer recharge of purified water would not cause unfavorable groundwater conditions in the Basin such that nearby District non-District wells are damaged, experience substantial loss of yield, or can no longer be operated. LS Impact 4.10-3: Introducing advanced purified wastewater into the existing groundwater supply of the Purisima aquifer units would not degrade aquifer water quality or violate water quality standards. LS Impact 4.10-4: Soil leaching of metals and other constituents from the aquifer materials, which could occur as a result of injecting purified water, would not degrade groundwater quality LS Impact 4.10-5: Elevated local groundwater levels caused by the Project would not degrade groundwater quality by inducing flows that intersect groundwater contaminant plumes or existing shallow soil contamination. LS Impact 4.10-6: Groundwater replenishment would not cause increased flooding and hydromodification in local streams. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation NI = No Impact Impact Discussion Impact 4.10-1: Borehole drilling, construction and development of the recharge wells and monitoring wells would not permanently draw local groundwater levels down to the extent that the operation of nearby District and non-District production wells are adversely affected, nor would water generated during well construction degrade ambient groundwater quality or violate groundwater quality standards. (Less than Significant) A significant impact would occur if construction activity associated with the drilling, construction and development of the proposed recharge wells or monitoring wells were to permanently lower groundwater levels, hinder the ability of nearby District and non-District production wells to pump groundwater, or degrade local groundwater quality to such a degree that water supplies in neighboring wells is no longer useable. Drilling deep, large diameter wells is a common occurrence and is conducted using proven, industry standard methods. Boreholes for proposed recharge wells and monitoring wells would be drilled by a truck-mounted drill rig using one of the standard drilling methods for large diameter deep wells; an example of this would be dual-wall, reverse-circulation rotary. 22 Some drilling projects require large 22 Dual-wall, reverse-circulation rotary drilling uses a drilling rig with two rotary drives. One drive rotates the outer drilling casing into the subsurface with a hardened drive or cutting shoe, while the other drive rotates an inner drill pipe and cutting bit. In reverse circulation, air or water is pumped under pressure down between the outer drill Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-38 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater volumes of water during well drilling to reduce friction in the drill casing and to help flush rock fragments and pulverized cuttings generated from drilling out of the borehole. For these operations, clean well drilling water is typically brought onto the site via support trucks or obtained from the municipal supply (e.g. temporary hook-up or hydrant). The water used during drilling is cycled through the well boring, flushed or ejected out of the hole, contained on site to settle sediment, and then transported off-site. Refer to Impact 4.11-1 or Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources - Surface Water, for additional information on the methods for collection and disposal of drilling water. As drilling water is typically brought on site or is provided by a municipal water purveyor (in the case of the Project, the District), its use has a less-than-significant effect on groundwater resource sources. After a monitoring or recharge well is constructed, it is developed. Well development is a standard procedure that is typically performed to maximize the well efficiency by removing fine-grained material that would clog the slots in the well screen and pore spaces of the gravel or sand filter pack and the surrounding aquifer formation. Clogging in the screen or filter pack would reduce the flow of water into the well. The procedure is conducted in general accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D5521-02: Standard Guide for Development of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells in Granular Aquifers. The two steps in a well development program are mechanical development and pumping development. Mechanical development can require three (3) to five (5) 24-hour days to complete and involves swabbing the inside of the screen and casing and airlifting or bailing out the water. A pump is used to pump and surge water through the well to remove remaining sediment from within the well. Mechanical development pumps can extract water at 200 gallons per minute (gpm) requiring up to 500,000 gallons of water. Monitoring well development uses compressed air and produces much less water (about 50,000 to 100,000 gallons). The pumping development continues until the well is free of sediment and the well water turbidity is low. Pumping development can require one (1) to four (4) days depending on the depth and size of the well and the conditions of the aquifer formation material. The groundwater volumes extracted during development of a large production or recharge well could range between 500,000 to 1.5 million gallons, depending on the planned rate of extraction from the well; development of monitoring wells would require considerably less water because they are smaller wells. Continued extraction of water causes the groundwater levels to decline in a circular pattern surrounding the well, forming what is referred to as a cone of depression. The development pumping would maintain the cone of depression until the development pumping ceases and levels recover as groundwater flows back into the aquifer materials. 23 The groundwater level drawdown created from well development is typically minimal and localized around the well due to the extraction rate (approximately 200 gpm over 6-10 days). casing and inner drill pipe, and air, water, and cuttings are returned to the surface in the inner drill pipe. Upon reaching the desired depth, the inner drill string is removed, and the well casing, filter pack, and surface seal is built inside the outer casing, allowing the well to be built while holding the native formation materials back from the borehole. Upon completion, the outer casing is withdrawn, leaving the finished well in place. 23 The cone of depression expands as pumping continues until the discharge from the well equals the recharge to the aquifer. When this equilibrium is reached, in what is referred to as the steady state conditions, the cone of depression ceases to expand. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-39 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Well development is a temporary operation that could depress groundwater levels locally around the well for up to an estimated 24 to 48-hours. However, given the location of the proposed recharge and monitoring well sites, the short-term duration of the well development process is not anticipated or expected to form a cone of depression that would adversely impact the operation of nearby District or non-District, private production wells. Therefore, the changes in water levels caused by well head development during the construction of the monitoring and recharge wells is considered less than significant. Construction of the recharge and monitoring wells would require the use of drilling fluids in the drilling process, primarily to help keep the borehole from caving in during drilling. These fluids are typically water-based and contain small amounts of inert additives. The chemicals in the fluids could degrade the groundwater quality in the Purisima aquifer and constitute a significant impact if not used properly and within the manufacturer’s guideline and professional standards. Examples of the products currently used throughout the water well drilling industry include liquid polymer emulsion used to stabilize the borehole by preventing reactive shale and clay from swelling and sloughing, or a concentrated detergent containing non-corrosive, non-contaminating, and slowly biodegradable wetting agents, dispersants, and emulsifiers. Sometimes a mud mixture is used that contains the expansive clay bentonite. However, polymers are widely used because they are more easily removed from the well during development. Often surfactants and dispersants are also used during well development. These and all drilling fluids that are added during drilling and development are removed through the downhole fluid circulation and well development. As the fluids are typically confined to the interior part of the borehole or may migrate a minimal distance from the well boring, there is a low potential for significant quantities of residual drilling fluids to remain in the aquifer after the fluids are removed through drilling circulation and well development and thus would have negligible effect on groundwater. Therefore, degradation of groundwater quality during drilling operations is considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.10-2: Managed active aquifer recharge of purified water would not cause unfavorable groundwater conditions in the Basin such that nearby District and nonDistrict wells are damaged, experience substantial loss of yield, or can no longer be operated. (Less than Significant) This impact analysis evaluates whether the pumping distribution and aquifer recharge of purified water would alter hydrogeologic conditions to the extent that unfavorable groundwater conditions would occur in the Purisima and Aromas Red Sand aquifer. For the purposes of this analysis, unfavorable groundwater conditions are those that result in an appreciable decrease in the quantity of available groundwater. In practice, this could result from Project conditions causing physical damage and a loss of yield in nearby wells by lowering static groundwater levels below the top of the well screen. As the Project would recharge the Purisima A and BC units, unfavorable conditions could also be characterized as an increase in groundwater elevations that Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-40 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater result in groundwater mounding (higher than normal groundwater elevations surrounding a recharge well, somewhat like a reversed cone of depression) that raises groundwater levels above the ground surface. The impact analysis first discusses the results of the groundwater modeling as they pertain to the effects the Project pumping scenarios would have on the groundwater levels in the Purisima A and BC units. Details of the modeling are presents in the Approach to Analysis, above and in Appendix D. The second part of this analysis evaluates whether the changes in groundwater levels would constitute a significant impact under CEQA. Results of Groundwater Modeling Applicable to Groundwater Levels This section summarizes the groundwater modeling results as they pertain to the groundwater level changes due to the Project. The model assumptions for the simulations are discussed in the Approach to Analysis section, above. The complete report of groundwater modeling results is presented in Appendix D. Projected Existing Conditions Simulation Results The modeled Projected Existing Conditions simulation results represent what the model projects as the groundwater condition in the Basin if the Project was not implemented. The Projected Existing Conditions simulations include an assumption of drought curtailment during critically dry years that are not assumed in Project simulations. This is because the curtailment would be an interim measure undertaken while SqCWD develops new water sources such as the Project. The results show that groundwater levels would increase over time and show recovery to long term stable groundwater levels in the District’s coastal wells but would not reach protective elevations at monitoring wells SC-5A, SC-8C and SC-9C (see Figure 4.10-6 and 4.10-7). In the coastal wells near Aromas, reduced pumping from historical totals results in long-term recovery but under the Projected Existing Conditions simulation, groundwater levels respond to climatic changes and protective groundwater levels would not be met at all coastal monitoring wells (Figure 4.10-8). Cabrillo-Monterey Simulations The modeled Cabrillo-Monterey simulation results show an increase in groundwater levels in the Purisima A and BC units near the Cabrillo College and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites during the Project period and under both climate scenarios. This indicates that the amount of water recharged to the aquifer would be greater than the increases in the amount of groundwater pumping. Figure 4.10-6 and 4.10-7 shows coastal monitoring wells SC-1A, SC-3A and SC-5A in the Purisima A unit and SC-5C, SC-9C and SC-8C in the Purisima BC unit. Water levels in these wells would increase over 10 feet in the first year of replenishment and would be maintained above protective levels during the Project period. Post-project groundwater levels would increase due to replenishment at the Monterey Avenue and Cabrillo College Recharge Wells sites but after the Project period ends, the levels would decline close to or below protective levels over the following 10 years; but the levels would remain 1 to 2 feet higher at the coast than they would without the Project. Aromas area wells in the Purisima F unit and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer wells show increases in all Project simulations. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-41 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Draft Technical Memorandum Groundwater Level and Budget Results for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations Page 13 Figure 4. Simulated Project and No Project Coastal Groundwater Levels near SqCWD Purisima A Unit Pumping SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Street, Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment Suite 501  Oakland, CA 94612 and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 Franklin Figure 4.10-6 (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District A Unit Pumping Draft Technical Memorandum Groundwater Level and Budget Results for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations Page 14 Figure 5. Simulated Project and No Project Coastal Groundwater Levels near SqCWD Purisima BC Unit Pumping SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Street, Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment Suite 501  Oakland, CA 94612 and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 Franklin Figure 4.10-7 (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District BC Unit Pumping Draft Technical Memorandum Groundwater Level and Budget Results for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations Page 16 Figure 7. Simulated Project and No Project Coastal Groundwater Levels near SqCWD Purisima F Unit/Aromas Pumping SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Street, Suite Groundwater 501  Oakland, CA 94612and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 Franklin Pure Water Soquel: Replenishment (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) Figure 4.10-8 Simulated Coastal Groundwater Levels Near District Purisima F/Aromas Pumping 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Willowbrook-Monterey Simulation Results The modeled results of the Willowbrook-Monterey simulations are similar to those of the Cabrillo-Monterey simulations in that groundwater levels would increase in the Purisima A unit near the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site during the Project period and under both climate scenarios. Groundwater level are also shown to increase in the Purisima BC unit near the recharge wells. Post-Project groundwater levels would decline similar to the levels under the Project simulations, but the groundwater increase that would remain is slightly less than that of the Cabrillo-Monterey at the end of the model period. As shown in Appendix D, Figure 17, the model did project draw up at the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site approaching approximately 100 feet above ground surface. However, the projected elevated groundwater levels are due to lower modeled hydraulic conductivities near the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Site. These conductivities were used in the calibration of the model and are based on regional groundwater levels as opposed to site specific data. Actual site-specific hydraulic conductivities and well capacities would need to be determined through borehole testing to further evaluate the potential for draw-up at the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site. Borehole testing at the Willowbrook Lane site would verify site hydrogeologic data and well capacities and would be used to establish operational parameters necessary to avoid draw up that would reach or exceed the ground surface, as is required as part of the Project’s operational requirements. Impact Analysis A significant environmental impact on groundwater resources would occur if the proposed pumping distribution and managed active recharge would cause permanently depressed groundwater levels, damaged or reduced yield in District and non-District wells or caused groundwater levels to increase to the ground surface. This analysis utilized the groundwater modeling results to evaluate how the groundwater levels would change under a Projected Existing Conditions simulation, the Cabrillo-Monterey simulation, and the Willowbrook-Monterey simulation. Under the Projected Existing Conditions and two Project simulations, groundwater levels would increase during the Project period in the Purisima A and Purisima BC units. In no case would the Project lower groundwater below the pre-Project levels, nor would the Project cause groundwater levels in any municipal, private, or monitoring well to fall below the top of the wells screen. Overall, the Project would increase groundwater levels in the Basin and would have a beneficial effect on non-district, District, and private wells. This impact is considered less than significant because the Project would not cause groundwater levels to decline nor would the Project be operated under excessive draw-up conditions. Mitigation: None required. __________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-45 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Impact 4.10-3: Introducing advanced purified wastewater into the existing groundwater supply of the Purisima aquifer units would not degrade aquifer water quality or violate water quality standards. (Less than Significant) The Project would treat secondary effluent through advanced water purification processes and inject it into the Purisima A and BC units through recharge wells. A significant impact would occur if the injected purified water contained residual chemicals, pathogens, or other contaminants at high enough concentrations leading to degradation of the ambient groundwater quality and violation of groundwater quality standards. Recharging groundwater aquifers with purified water has been implemented successfully in California. For example, the Orange County Water District, currently purifies secondary effluent to near distilled water quality and recharges 100 million gallons per day into their groundwater basin. The State of California supports this type of potable reuse, repeatedly documenting the high-quality water and the protection of public health. Final regulations for groundwater recharge are adopted by the State through the DDW, as discussed in the Regulatory Framework, above, and these regulations are key to the impact assessment of the Project. This impact analysis discusses the characterization of the groundwater and the potential for residual contaminants to be present in the purified source water. Contaminants of Concern and Treatment The advanced water purification process removes chemical constituents, pathogens, and CECs from the source water. As further defined in the Regulatory Framework, above, CEC is a broad term that may include a wide range of trace level pollutants that are common to modern wastewater streams, such as; potential endocrine disrupting compounds, pharmaceutically active compounds, and personal care products. The DDW requires that potable reuse projects produce a high quality water that meets state and federal potable water standards, removes pathogens using multiple barriers of treatment, utilizes RO for removal of total organic carbon and salts, is low in conventional disinfection byproducts (DPBs), and provides for an advanced oxidation process (AOP) that is capable of further reduction of trace level organic pollutants, should they pass through the RO process (Carollo, 2017). The Project would employ a treatment process that would purify conventionally (secondary) treated municipal wastewater. Secondary treated wastewater (effluent) is the product of a treatment process that remove solids and uses biological treatment to remove pollutants and pathogens. The purification process involves treating the secondary effluent with membrane filtration [e.g., MF or UF], RO, and an UV AOP. MF and UF are employed before RO to provide removal of small particulate matter that could hinder the RO performance and create barriers to pathogens. However, MF or UF are not intended as CEC removal technologies. RO has been shown to remove compounds that are not typically attenuated by MF or UF such as dissolved minerals and contaminants. RO membranes provide high removal rates for CECs. As RO is a required component for advanced water purification, this treatment sequence meets State of California requirements for advanced water treatment. UV AOP is highly effective at destroying a wide array of CECs, because AOP is not selective as to the compounds it destroys. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-46 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Wastewater Characterization Studies In October 2017, samples of the SC WWTF secondary effluent were tested for various chemical constituents including unregulated CECs and regulated drinking water chemicals. The resulting concentrations were compared to CEC occurrence data from other sites using the same water purification process proposed for the Project. 24 The study also estimated the removal efficiency of the purification processes based on other sites using the same proposed treatment processes as the Project. Additionally, the study compared estimated CEC concentrations in the purified water generated by the Project with CEC monitoring data from the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek Water District groundwater. The results of the 2017 study are summarized below. Testing results of the SC WWTF secondary effluent found that: • 4 out of the 5 detected chemicals with regulatory NLs, were found below the associated regulatory notification level, except NDMA that had a notification level of 10 ng/L and was detected at 11 ng/L. • Of the 11 chemicals with primary drinking water MCLs, all were below their respective MCLs, with the exception of nitrite at 1.4 mg/L, above the MCL of 1 mg/L. • Ten chemicals with secondary drinking water MCLs were detected below the associated secondary MCL, except color, odor, and total dissolved solids. • For the unregulated CECs, 16 CECs were detected in the SC WWTF secondary effluent, and all were found to be below their associated health screening levels. The evaluation of the removal efficiency found that the CECs in the SC WWTF secondary effluent were all projected to be removed by between 83 percent and 99.9 percent with additional purification treatment using AWPF processes and to orders of magnitude below their associated health screening levels. The predicted concentrations of CECs in purified water from a SC WWTF source are expected to be below detection and below their associated MCL (Carollo, 2017). These results are consistent with current knowledge of both conventional wastewater treatment and advanced wastewater treatment processes. Similar removal efficiencies for pharmaceuticals, CECs, and existing technology were reported by the World Health Organization in which an MF/RO process showed a removal range of 91 to 100 percent of detected pharmaceuticals and UV AOP had a reported removal range of 52 percent to 100 percent (Carollo, 2017). Comparisons of the purified water quality expected from the Project to the CEC constituent data from the San Lorenzo River and two of District production wells revealed that of the 39 CECs reported, 21 were not detected in the purified water, San Lorenzo River, or groundwater. Of the 18 detected CECs in the different supplies, none represent a health concern. CECs in the secondary effluent source water are well below health screening levels before advanced water purification. The CEC studies conducted with San Lorenzo River water and groundwater are 24 The comparative data set is limited, as most AWPFs do not sample secondary effluent for CECs. Three sites were used for the comparison of secondary effluent and CEC concentrations: 1) Santa Clara Valley Water District, which receives secondary effluent from the City of San Jose, California, 2) City of Oxnard, California, which receives secondary effluent from their adjacent wastewater treatment plant, and 3) Colorado River Municipal Water District, Texas, which receives secondary effluent from the town of Big Spring Texas. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-47 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater consistent with other studies of drinking water sources. The 2012 World Health Organization literature review referenced above studied the occurrence of the pharmaceuticals in drinkingwater sources world-wide and concluded that most of the pharmaceuticals present in source water (surface water in particular), pose a very low health concern because they are present in trace amounts. In most cases, concentrations of detected pharmaceuticals were at least 1,000 times lower than the lowest established effective medical dose (Carollo, 2017). Response Residence Time (RRT) Under the Groundwater Replenishment Regulations, as discussed in the Regulatory Framework, the treatment process for the advanced water purification is required to include RO, AOP, at least three separate barriers for virus removal, and a minimum of two months of subsurface travel time, from the time of recharge to the time of extraction for use. The intent of the RRT is to retain recycled water underground to identify any treatment failure so that inadequately treated recycled water does not enter a potable water system. Retention time was evaluated for the proposed recharge wells using the GSFLOW groundwater model particle tracking results, as described in additional detail in Appendix D. Particle tracking is a procedure used in groundwater modeling that traces the flow of virtual “particles” that are “released” at the well site in the model. When the model is run, the particles migrate based on the model input parameters that simulate recharge rates, groundwater conditions, and characteristics of the geologic formation. The particle tracking results for the Purisima A unit are shown graphically on Figures 4.10-9 (Cabrillo-Monterey simulation) and 4.10-10 (Willowbrook-Monterey simulation). Appendix D provides the particle tracking results for the Purisima BC unit, which are less pronounced than the results shown on the figures for the Purisima A unit. The maps of the particle tracking results show colors that correspond to the projected travel time (in years) required for recharged water to reach a municipal or private groundwater well. For example, closer to the recharge wells, the red band indicates that the purified water is projected to require 5 to 8 years travel time, while the extremities of the recharge area are blue indicating a projected travel time of 23 to 25 years. The particle tracking results indicate that the time it takes the purified water to reach a municipal or private groundwater well is much longer than the minimum required subsurface travel time (2 months), and thus, the projected residence times would be well above the regulatory limits. System Monitoring California regulations (see Regulatory Framework, above) require a comprehensive monitoring program to ensure that the quality of the treated water remains high. The monitoring program requires the operator to test, on a quarterly basis, a minimum of two monitoring wells between the point(s) of recharge/injection and extraction for drinking water. In addition, other real time monitoring systems must be in place to identify failures in the system to avoid recharging the groundwater with non-purified water. Online sensor technology is available that provides water managers with the ability to control the treatment process in real time to ensure the process is working as intended. There are specific monitoring technologies for each process in the Project treatment sequence (MF/UF, RO, and UV-AOP). For example, in some systems, if the required UV dose is not provided for pathogen disinfection, the plant automatically shuts down. Facilities can be designed, engineered, and operated to limit opportunities for failure and ensure proper system operation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-48 ESA / 160164 June 2018 SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-9 Particle End Points Released in A Aquifer under Cabrillo-Monterey Simulations SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-10 Particle End Points Released in A Aquifer under Willowbrook-Monterey Simulations 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater National Water Research Institute The National Water Research Institute (NWRI), invited academic researchers and other water industry experts to an Independent Advisory Panel (Panel) to provide scientific and technical review of the Project for the District. The goal of the Panel review was to help District staff and local policymakers make informed decisions about the Project to ensure it would be protective of public health and the environment. The Panel provided an independent, third-party review of the technical and scientific components of the proposed Project, including the sampling and monitoring plan for CECs (NWRI, 2017). The Panel concluded that the Project is “plausible, feasible, and protective of public health” considering the quality of the source water that would be provided by the SC WWTF, the use of proven advanced treatment technologies to produce water that meets all drinking water requirements and is protective of public health and the environment, and the projected safety and quality of the advanced treated water to be produced. The Panel’s conclusions were based in part on reports and presentations provided by the District staff and consultants, the Panel members’ technical knowledge and experiences with existing potable reuse projects in other locations in California, and panel members’ understanding of state and federal drinking water regulations. Impact Conclusions Based on the proposed water treatment sequence, recharge locations, and estimated residence time, the Project would comply with state groundwater regulations and would adequately treat and remove the chemicals of concern and the CEC’s present in the wastewater stream generated by the SC WWTF. Advanced water purification processes would greatly reduce or eliminate the concentrations of trace CEC’s or other chemicals of concern to far below limits considered safe for human consumption. The conclusions reached by the NWRI panel of experts reflect this conclusion. As the injection of advanced treated wastewater would be adequately treated, the potential for degradation of the ambient potable groundwater in the Purisima A and BC units would negligible and this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.10-4: Soil leaching of metals and other constituents from the aquifer materials, which could occur as a result of injecting purified water, would not degrade groundwater quality. (Less than Significant) This impact analysis considers whether the injection of purified water would cause leaching of metals and other constituents from the aquifer sediments to the groundwater and if it did, whether it would be a significant water quality impact. The primary sources for this analysis are the Potential Injection Aquifer Geochemical Characterization and Pure Water Soquel IPR Antidegradation Evaluation conducted by Brown and Caldwell (2016 and 2018, respectively), and the GSFLOW groundwater modeling results prepared by HydroMetrics and discussed above in the Approach to Analysis section. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-51 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Managed active recharge of purified water into an aquifer can cause chemical reactions between the purified water and the aquifer material such that mineral dissolution 25, oxidation 26, and/or desorption 27 occur. These processes can lead to the release of metals (from iron or manganese oxide minerals) or other inorganic constituents (sulfides through oxidation). Changes in water quality caused by these processes can lead to treatment operations issues and could potentially degrade groundwater quality of an aquifer. The Purisima Formation is a sedimentary deposit consisting of sandstone, siltstone and mudstone layers or lenses. As discussed above, several geologic units, both aquifers and aquitards labeled AA through F, have been defined within the Purisima Formation in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin (Figure 4.10-3). Sandstones of the Purisima Formation consist of plagioclase feldspar 28 minerals and quartz minerals with minor volcanic rock fragments of andesite, basalt and pumice (Brown and Caldwell, 2016). Calcite and chlorite form a secondary cement between the rock fragments. Fossil sea shells are also commonly found within the Purisima Formation. Geochemical Characterization A geochemical characterization of the Purisima aquifer sediments was conducted to determine whether the injection of purified water into the Purisima aquifer materials would lead to the oxidation and dissolution of metals and/or other minerals and whether those minerals would leach into the groundwater (also known as leaching potential). The geochemical characterization included two tests: a soil leaching analysis, known as the Synthetic Precipitation Leachate Procedure (SPLP) and a mineralogical characterization involving visual description and x-ray diffraction (XRD). Soil Leaching Analysis (SPLP) The SPLP analysis used representative soils samples obtained during the previous installation of District soil borings and wells. Well logs, completed during the boring and well installations were reviewed to evaluate soil characteristics and groundwater data was reviewed as part of the sample selection process. Water chemistry collected from groundwater sampling data was plotted on scatter plots to identify similarities and differences of the groundwater within the aquifer that would undergo replenishment. Samples were chosen based on the well boring logs and groundwater data and composited based on the depth interval they represent. The SPLP analysis was conducted using SPLP Method 1312. In general, the SPLP test uses a predetermined solution to solids ratio to extract readily dissolvable solid phase material. The objective of the geochemical characterization is to identify constituents that could leach from the aquifer materials and aquitard using a small amount of material from the actual soil boring (Brown and Caldwell, 2016). De-ionized water is used to simulate the “most conservative” scenario of potential mineral leaching, which is equivalent to RO treated water that has not undergone post-treatment stabilization before injection into the aquifer. Typically, purified water 25 Mineral dissolution is the process by which a rock or mineral completely dissolves in water. 26 Oxidation refers to any chemical reaction in which a material gives up electrons, as when the material combines with oxygen. Burning is an example of rapid oxidation; rusting is an example of slow oxidation. 27 Desorption refers to the process where a substance is released from or through a surface; the opposite of absorption. 28 Plagioclase feldspar refers to the group of six common rock forming minerals found in igneous rocks. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-52 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater for recharge requires post-treatment stabilization so the purified water is compatible with the ambient groundwater quality in the aquifer and will not leach constituents from the aquifer. SPLP results indicate that the aquifer materials, when exposed to purified water could leach a range of inorganic constituents (metals or ions) from the adjacent aquifer materials if proper posttreatment condition is not implemented for the purified water. Leachable constituents include cadmium, nickel, fluoride, sulfate, manganese, and iron. It would not be appropriate to make direct comparisons between the SPLP result and the California MCLs because the SPLP was under the most conservative scenario and did not represent treated drinking water. However, the results provide a method to rank the individual constituents based on their likelihood of leaching to the groundwater when exposed to purified water. For example, in one SPLP sample (SC-9R450-620-B), cadmium and nickel results were in the same order of magnitude as their respective MCL’s while the manganese concentration in five samples was several orders of magnitude above the Secondary California MCL for manganese. In this example, manganese would have the higher leaching potential. Mineralogical Characterization XRD is a laboratory procedure that provides mineral quantity estimates based on X-ray diffraction patterns exhibited in the sample of aquifer material. Results of the XRD analysis identified the major and minor percentages of minerals in the samples. These results agree with the geologic description of the Purisima Formation in the District. Clay minerals are consistent with the geologic descriptions of the rocks and vary across the sample locations; higher clay mineral content could increase the occurrence of clay mineral migration during the injection and recovery process and result in a higher probability of clogged aquifer pore spaces (Brown and Caldwell, 2016). Gypsum, a sulfate mineral was identified in 4 of 5 samples; sulfate mineral dissolution could be contributing to the elevated sulfate concentrations measured in the SPLP analysis. Pyrite, a sulfide mineral can react when exposed to oxygen either in the air or water and sulfide oxidation can release metals with sulfides such as arsenic, iron, chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and zinc (Brown and Caldwell, 2016). Visual examination of the samples identified iron oxide, which could be the reason for the high iron concentration detected in the SPLP analysis. Impact Discussion: Oxidation and Mineral Dissolution The geochemical characterization concluded that based on the characteristics of aquifer sediments, there is a potential for some regulated metals (arsenic, cadmium, nickel, and manganese) and other inorganic constituents (fluoride, sulfate) to be released to the aquifer through leaching due to the injection of purified water. If these constituents, especially the regulated metals, were to be released to the groundwater in the Purisima in concentrations that exceed California MCLs, it would be considered a significant impact. However, under SWRCB DDW regulations and the state Anti-Degradation Policy, the District would not be permitted to implement the Project and recharge the aquifer with purified water that could induce leaching of metals or other inorganic constituents to the groundwater. As discussed above in Approach to Analysis, the District did complete an Anti-Degradation study. The study concluded that the treated water could need conditioning to minimize the potential for leaching of other constituents that may be susceptible to mobilization under low Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-53 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater salinity and/or oxidized conditions. Therefore, proper conditioning to prevent geochemical mobilization in excess of MCLs would occur and the Project would conform with Resolution 6816 Antidegradation Policy (Brown and Caldwell, 2018). As part of this Project and in accordance with the SWRCB DDW regulations and the state Anti-Degradation Policy, adherence to which is mandatory for water recharge projects (see Section 4.10.3, Regulatory Framework, above), the District would conduct the appropriate studies and testing to develop adequate post-treatment stabilization measures that would ensure chemical leaching does not occur to an extent that groundwater quality standards would be violated. Given that the District proposes post-treatment stabilization prior to injection of the purified water and would comply with California’s water quality standards, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: None required. ________________________ Impact 4.10-5: Elevated local groundwater levels caused by the Project would not degrade groundwater quality by inducing flows that intersect groundwater contaminant plumes or existing shallow soil contamination. (Less than Significant) As discussed in Impact 4.10-2, managed direct recharge of water into an aquifer can increase groundwater elevations around the recharge well sometimes creating a groundwater mound. A groundwater mound is the inverse of a cone of depression, which forms around a well while pumping is underway. Because groundwater flows from a high hydraulic head to a low hydraulic head, when a groundwater mound forms, the natural, pre-existing direction and slope of the groundwater can change, forcing groundwater to flow in different directions. The Project would inject purified water into the Purisima A and BC units causing groundwater levels to rise, as represented on Figures 4.10-6 and 4.10-7, respectively. The groundwater mounding is also shown in groundwater levels in the Purisima A and BC units after the Project period of 20 years are shown on Figures 4.10-11 and 4.10-12. A surface release of hazardous materials such as gasoline, oils, diesel, or dry cleaner chemicals can migrate downward through subsurface soils until it reaches and interacts with the native groundwater to form what is often referred to as a contaminate plume. The contaminate plumes migrate in the same direction and with the same speed as the groundwater flows through the aquifer. The rate at which groundwater flows varies greatly depending on the aquifer materials and gradient. If the groundwater levels increase due to local area recharge, the natural flow of groundwater could change as would the flow direction of a contaminant plume. If this occurs, the contaminants in the plume could flow into and distribute contamination in previously uncontaminated aquifer soil materials or groundwater, effectively spreading contamination and degrading groundwater that was previously unaffected. Elevated groundwater levels can also disrupt remediation efforts, such as those that extract groundwater and treat it to remove the contaminants. For example, changes to the local groundwater flow direction could push the contaminate plume undergoing remediation away from the production wells. Additionally, a rising groundwater surface could also intersect pre-existing soil contamination in the unsaturated Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-54 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Draft Technical Memorandum Groundwater Level and Budget Results for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations Page 20 Cabrillo-Monterey – Projected Existing Conditions Willowbrook – Monterey – Projected Existing Conditions Figure 10. Purisima A Unit Groundwater Level Increases after 20 Years Replenishment SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-11 Level Increases Purisima A Unit HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 FranklinGroundwater Street, Suite 501  Oakland, CA in 94612 After 20 Years of Replenishment (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) Draft Technical Memorandum Groundwater Level and Budget Results for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations Page 21 Cabrillo-Monterey – Projected Existing Conditions Willowbrook – Monterey – Projected Existing Conditions Figure 11. Purisima BC Unit Groundwater Level Increases after 20 Years Replenishment SOURCE: Hydrometrics WRI, 2017, 2018 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 4.10-12 Groundwater Increases Purisima BC Unit HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc.  1814 Franklin Street, Suite Level 501  Oakland, CAin94612 After 20 Years of Replenishment (510) 903-0458  (510) 903-0468 (fax) 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater zone between the ground surface and groundwater surface (referred to as the vadose zone) and spread the contamination into otherwise uncontaminated soil zones. Due to stringent federal and state regulations that reduce the potential for soil and groundwater contamination by hazardous materials, most contaminant plumes in urban settings have been identified, delineated, and are either undergoing some type of remediation or have since been cleaned up. Federal and state regulations for storage and use of hazardous materials and California’s underground storage tank programs decrease the likelihood that hazardous materials are released and are able to enter the subsurface (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials). Impact Discussion The analysis to determine whether the Project would cause groundwater to intersect a pre-existing contaminant plume involved identifying hazardous material spills sites in the area affected by purified water recharge and determining the flow direction and flow rate of the recharge water at the Project well sites. Information on properties with pre-existing contaminated groundwater plumes was obtained from the hazardous materials site inventory completed for this EIR, (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials), the District’s groundwater vulnerability assessment under California’s DWSAP, and in information on contaminated sites in the District’s Well Master Plan (District, 2010). As discussed above, flow direction and rate of recharge water into the Project wells was determined using particle tracking. The results of particle tracking in the Purisima A unit for the Project is shown in Appendix D and Figures 4.10-9 and 4.10-10, respectively. The particle tracking maps show the direction the purified water used for recharge would travel and time in years it would take to arrive at a particular location, such as another well. No active contaminant plumes have been identified near the District’s service area that would be affected by purified water recharge. A former leaking underground tank case (Quik Stop at 5505 Soquel Drive), which was identified in the 2009 SqCWD Well Master Plan, was closed in 2014 following completion of the groundwater remediation and the site was determined not to be a threat to groundwater. The Quik Stop site was contaminated by MTBE and tert-butyl alcohol. This site was approximately 800 feet south of the proposed Cunnison Lane well site and the District’s 2009 Well Master Plan considered it a potential threat to future District pumping. The mitigation measure in the Well Master Plan requiring that Cunnison Lane well site could not be developed until the Quik Stop site was no longer a threat to groundwater has been met. Another active hazardous materials site, identified as McGregor Property, 1560 McGregor Drive, Capitola (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) is a site with reported arsenic and lead in the shallow soil above screening levels. While this site is in the area that would experience a groundwater level increase approaching 50 feet due to the Project recharge (see Appendix D, Figure 21, Simulated Well 8091), the groundwater surface would still be about 75 feet below the ground surface and thus groundwater would not intersect shallow soil contamination. This is a similar condition for sites near the recharge wells that have undiscovered or unreported soil contamination. The Project would raise groundwater levels in the District’s service areas and could alter local groundwater flow directions due to the changes in groundwater gradients. However, these Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-57 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater localized changes in groundwater flow and gradient would not result in groundwater degradation because there are no known, active contaminant plumes in the District’s service areas. Furthermore, known and undiscovered shallow soil contamination, which could be spread by rising groundwater levels, would not be disturbed because the Project would not be operated under conditions where groundwater draw up would approach the ground surface and shallow soils where soil contamination is typically found (See Impact 4.10-2, above). Therefore, based on these conclusions, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.10-6: Groundwater replenishment would not cause increased flooding and hydromodification in local streams. (Less than Significant) As groundwater extraction can deplete baseflow by intercepting groundwater that would otherwise seep into the stream, so could groundwater recharge add baseflow (in gaining stream reaches) or decrease the rate at which water seeps out of the stream (in losing stream reaches). Secondary impacts of increased baseflow can include localized flooding and erosion in the streambed (i.e. hydromodification). This analysis is based on conditions that apply to a groundwater replenishment project where the groundwater levels increase; the conditions are: (1) the presence of a stream (Soquel Creek and its tributaries) in close proximity to an area experiencing groundwater elevation increases attributable to the Project; (2) a hydraulic connection between the stream and groundwater aquifer, and; (3) an increase in groundwater levels due to managed active recharge. These conditions could be met along the alignment of Soquel Creek and its tributary streams in areas where the groundwater levels would increase due to the proposed groundwater replenishment. Groundwater modeling shows the Project could cause the flows from stream alluvium to groundwater to decrease by less than about 100 afy. This is shown graphically in Figure 25 of Appendix D. Considering the length and volume of flow in Soquel Creek, 100 afy is not a substantial volume. Because the surface water flows to the groundwater along Soquel Creek (losing stream) rather than the groundwater flowing into the creek (gaining stream), under these conditions, it is expected that the increase in groundwater levels from the Project would reduce the amount of surface water flowing to groundwater rather than increase the baseflow in Soquel Creek. The effects on Soquel Creek from the Project, if any, would be minor and difficult to distinguish among the other factors that affect baseflow. The Project would not alter baseflow in Soquel Creek to a degree that would cause substantial changes in the flow regime and thus, this impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: None required. __________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-58 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater 4.10.5 References – Hydrology Resources – Groundwater Brown and Caldwell, 2016. Potential Injection Aquifer Geochemical Characterization. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, Soquel, California. October 31. ———, 2018. Draft Pure Water Soquel IPR Anti-degradation Evaluation. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, Soquel, California. March 18. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 1968. Resolution No. 68-16, Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California. October 28, 1968. California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2015. Regulations Related to Recycled Water. Updated July 16, 2015. Carollo, 2017. Soquel Creek Water District Groundwater Replenishment Feasibility Study Technical Memorandum No. 2 - CEC Removal Through Advanced Treatment – FINAL. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District. November. Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2016. Sustainable Groundwater Management. Website Accessed March 2018. https://www.water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/ SGMA-Groundwater-Management. HydroMetrics WRI, 2016. Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Boundary Modification. Prepared for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee, March. ———, 2017a. SqCWD Pumping Distribution for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations: Revision 2, Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, December 13. ———, 2017b. Santa Cruz Mid‐County Basin Groundwater Management Biennial Review and Report Water Years 2015‐2016. Prepared for: Santa Cruz Mid‐County Groundwater Agency MGA Board DRAFT. July. ———, 2017c. Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Semi-Annual Groundwater Monitoring Report through Water Year 2017. Prepared for: Santa Cruz Mid‐County Groundwater Agency MGA Board DRAFT. November. ———, 2018a. Management Implications of SkyTEM Seawater Intrusion Results Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, March 8. ———, 2018b. Pure Water Soquel Model Simulation Results SqCWD Pumping Distribution for Pure Water Soquel Model Simulations: Revision 2, Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, June 22. Johnson, N. M., D. Williams, E.B. Yates, and G. Thrupp. Groundwater Assessment of Alternative Conjunctive Use Scenarios – Technical Memorandum 2: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, September, 2004. MRWPCA and MPWMD, 2016. Consolidated Final Environmental Impact Report or Pure Water Monterey Groundwater Replenishment Project. Prepared by Denise Duffy and Associates, January. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-59 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.10 Hydrology Resources – Groundwater National Water Research Institute (NWRI), 2017. Pure Water Soquel Groundwater Replenishment Project. Final Pane; Report No. 2. Based on Independent Advisory Panel for Soquel Creek Water District’s Pure Water Soquel Groundwater Replenishment Project. Meeting held September 20. Ramboll, 2018. Hydrogeological Investigation Salt - Fresh Water Interface – Monterey. Prepared for Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency. February. Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA), 2017. Initial Notification to Prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin as required by California Water Code §10727.8 and 23 CCR §353.6. Letter to Trevor Joseph, P.G., C.HG., Sustainable Groundwater Management Section Chief, California Department of Water Resources. August 22. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2006. Soquel Creek Water District, Soquel Creek Water District Integrated Resources Plan. Prepared by Environmental Science Associates, 2006. ———, 2010. Soquel Creek Water District Well Master Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2006072018, prepared for Soquel Creek Water District, September 1. ———, 2016a. Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting for the Soquel Creek Water District. June 2016. ———, 2016b. Customer Confidence/Water Quality Report. Available at www.soquelcreekwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/Reports/2016_Consumer_ Confidence-Water_Quality_Report_final.pdf, Accessed April, 2018. Soquel Creek Water District (District) and Central Water District (CWD), 2007. AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan for the Soquel-Aptos Area, Santa Cruz County, California. February. Trussell, R. S., Trussell, R. R., Gerrity, D., and Pecson, B. (Trussell et al.), 2013. “Potable Reuse Treatment Trains throughout the World.” Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA 62(6). September. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.10-60 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water 4.11.1 Introduction The analysis of hydrology and water quality is separated into two sections in this EIR. This section addresses surface water hydrology and water quality, including in the marine environment of Monterey Bay. Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources - Groundwater, addresses groundwater hydrology and water quality, including surface water/groundwater interactions. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Hydrology Resources – Surface Water express concern regarding accidental releases of harmful substances into surface water bodies, Project impacts on flooding, consideration of contaminated railroad soils and their impacts on water quality, impacts of brine on ocean water, increased stormwater runoff from District offices onto Gary Drive, regulations and standards in place, and surface water safeguarding measures. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. This section describes the baseline conditions relating to surface water hydrology and water quality for the Project area, as well as the applicable federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations related to water resources. Baseline hydrologic and water quality conditions relevant to the Project include consideration of terrestrial surface waters and the offshore environment in Monterey Bay. The physical setting and baseline conditions relevant to the Project provide the basis for the impact analyses, which include assessment of whether the Project would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, alter existing drainage pattern of the site or area, contribute to or create runoff, degrade water quality, or expose people or structures to significant risk due to flooding or inundation. The methodology used to evaluate impacts from construction and operation of the Project is described and, where necessary, mitigation measures to minimize or avoid identified significant impacts are included. Potential effects to marine water quality resulting from the discharge of reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate are included in the assessment of water quality impacts. The analysis of how potential changes in ocean water quality may impact marine wildlife and habitat is discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. 4.11.2 Environmental Setting Project Study Area The Project study area (Project area) consists of the physical footprint of all Project components (Figure 3-1) to characterize baseline conditions and analyze potential impacts associated with the terrestrial components of the Project and Alternatives. Also considered are proposed temporary staging and use areas associated with short-term construction activities. Consideration is given to surface waters adjacent to or crossed by Project features (such as pipelines) or immediately down gradient that may potentially be affected by runoff or drainage. Specific to the offshore marine environment, the Project area relevant to operation of the Project includes Monterey Bay, with a focus on the area in the immediate vicinity of the existing SC WWTF outfall. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Regional Setting The Project is located along the coastal plains within Santa Cruz County. The coastline in Santa Cruz County is situated on an uplifted marine terrace—one of the many marine terraces that form the uplands east of Highway 1 along the coastal flank of the Santa Cruz Mountains. In general, surface water runoff originates in the upland areas and is conveyed by various coastal creeks across the marine terraces to Monterey Bay. During the last 1 million years, coastal uplift, together with an oscillating sea level, caused the streams to incise deep canyons across the marine terraces. Lagoon environments and beaches, built by sediment carried in the creeks, formed at the coast where these creeks and canyons meet the Pacific Ocean. Ongoing accumulation of sediment transported by creeks and coastal erosion processes continue to sculpt the Santa Cruz County coastline. The coastal plains within this region have a Mediterranean climate with mild rainy winters and warm dry summers. The Project area is located along the western margin of the Coast Range and the climate is dominated by the Pacific Ocean. The Project area is characterized by moderate coastal climate with mild, wet winters and generally dry summer days, which are often overcast or have coastal fog and cool temperatures. The average maximum temperature varies between approximately 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in December and January, to approximately 75°F in August and September. Average annual precipitation is approximately 30 inches, with the majority of the precipitation falling between November and March and typically very little or no precipitation falling between June and August. Surface Water Hydrology The SWRCB divides surface watersheds in California into management areas based on political and physiographic boundaries. The entire Project area is in the Big Basin Hydrologic Unit, as defined by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). The project area overlaps with three major watersheds or hydrologic sub-areas within the Big Basin Hydrologic Unit: the Baldwin/Wilder Watershed, the San Lorenzo River Watershed, and the Soquel Creek Watershed (County of Santa Cruz, 2017a). Within these larger watersheds, the Project area within the City of Santa Cruz and the area further east in the unincorporated County and Capitola are further divided into smaller sub-watersheds: the Neary Lagoon, Lower San Lorenzo River, Arana Creek-Rodeo Gulch, Soquel Creek, and Porter Gulch watersheds (County of Santa Cruz, 2017b, 2017c). Several of the creeks in the watersheds that overlap the Project area have culverted sections, but the majority are characterized by open channels (i.e., not enclosed in a culvert or pipe). The Project area also extends into the northern portion of Monterey Bay. A description of each of the relevant watersheds and water bodies (including Monterey Bay), listed from west to east, is provided below along with a description of stormwater drainage in the Project area. Watersheds and surface water features are shown on Figure 4.11-1. Watersheds and Waterbodies Within the Neary Lagoon Watershed, Neary Lagoon is located on the western edge of the Project area immediately north of the SC WWTF. Neary Lagoon is fed mainly by drainage from the UCSC campus via Bay and Laurel Creeks as well as other developed residential and commercial areas. During the dry season, water in Neary Lagoon is diverted to the wastewater treatment plant on Bay Street to the southwest of the lagoon. Excess stormwater flows in Neary Lagoon overflow Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 ek re cif B ra n orte C sC te Ba San Lorenzo Watershed Arana-Rodeo Watershed k ree Soquel Watershed Å Ä h 17 _ ^ k ee a on n h u lc G lc Cabrillo College North ### Twin Lakes Church Cabrillo College South Capitola Cr ee Le # l ue Cr 1 S oq Å Ä Monterey Ave R o de oC Santa Cruz # e Gu l _ ^ ob 1 N Å Ä ch G ree k a an Ar Chanticleer Site Gul iver n zo R ul c h Lore k Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Surface_Water.mxd, wsm 2/9/2018 Willowbrook Lane Headquarters-West Annex Site Ta n n Sa Å Ä 9 y er _ ^ Santa Cruz WWTF Watershed Boundary Sub-Watersheds Baldwin/Wilder Watershed Arana-Rodeo # Recharge Well (Options) Baldwin/Wilder _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) Branciforte Carbonera Lower San Lorenzo Lower Soquel 0 1 Miles Stream Project Components Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Porter Urban San Lorenzo Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; Santa Cruz County, 2017 4.11-1 Surface Water Features 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water to Cowells Beach via a lagoon outlet and weir, outlet channel, pump station, and beach outlet (URS, 2013). To the east of the SC WWTF and within the San Lorenzo River Watershed, the Project area intersects the lower urbanized portions of the main stem of the 25-mile long San Lorenzo River at Laurel Street and at Campbell Street. Within the Arana Creek-Rodeo Gulch Watershed, the Project area intersects: Arana Creek where it crosses under Capitola Road and Soquel Avenue; Leona Creek/Schwann Lake at Capitola Road, Brommer Street, and the rail line; and, Rodeo Gulch at Soquel Avenue, Capitola Road, Brommer Street, and the rail line. Arana Creek is natural, with a riparian corridor along most of its reach, and is surrounded by the City-owned Arana Creek greenbelt property in the lower portions, where Arana Creek broadens out into a wetland area (Arana Wetland) before entering the Santa Cruz Harbor. Schwann Lake (also known as Schwann Lagoon) is located within the Twin Lakes State Beach area between Corcoran Lagoon to the east and the Santa Cruz harbor, to the west (URS, 2013). Schwann Lake is supplied by flows from three streams, the largest being Leona Creek, draining a 1.1-mile urbanized area (Leonard, 1993). Rodeo Gulch flows through the unincorporated Santa Cruz County community of Live Oak, between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, with primarily residential development in the lower reaches relevant to the Project area. Rodeo Gulch is daylighted for most of its length, and flows into Corcoran Lagoon, before terminating at the Pacific Ocean. Within the Soquel Creek Watershed, the Project area intersects: Soquel Creek at Soquel Drive, Soquel Elementary Bridge, and Porter Street; and, Noble Creek at Kennedy Drive. Soquel Creek flows through unincorporated portions of the County in its upper watershed, and the center of Capitola as it approaches the ocean (URS, 2013). The creek is an open channel throughout its entire length as it flows through open space, residential, and commercial zones. Soquel Creek terminates at Capitola City Beach. Nobel (also called Noble) Gulch is a small tributary that flows into Soquel Creek from the east. Nobel Gulch originates near Fairway Drive and Bay Heights Drive and flows south under Highway 1 through Capitola to Soquel Creek. Within the Porter Gulch Watershed, to the east of Soquel Creek, the Project area intersects Porter Gulch just north of Highway 1 at Cabrillo College Drive. Porter Gulch flows through New Brighton State Beach, just south of the Project area, before meeting the Pacific Ocean. The main waterways are Porter Gulch and Borregas Creek (County of Santa Cruz, 2017c). Stormwater Drainage The Project area is generally urbanized and serviced by stormwater collection and conveyance infrastructure. The storm drain systems in the Project area are comprised of a wide variety of conveyance systems such as underground pipes, small open drainage channels, creeks, and larger water courses (such as the San Lorenzo River and Soquel Creek). The system includes numerous storm drain inlets and catch basins throughout the area, and pump stations that discharge stormwater directly into the major water courses. In addition, there are numerous stormwater outfalls that discharge onto the local beaches or cliffs, and into Monterey Bay (City of Santa Cruz, 2011). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Monterey Bay Monterey Bay is a bay of the Pacific Ocean on California’s Central Coast within the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS). The bay extends between the city of Santa Cruz and the Monterey Peninsula. MBNMS was designated in 1992 as a federally protected marine area off California's Central Coast. It stretches from Marin to Cambria, encompasses a shoreline length of 276 miles and 4,601 square nautical miles of ocean, and extends an average distance of 30 miles from shore. The shoreline of Monterey Bay is composed primarily of less resistant sand dune and sedimentary deposits that form the ancient sand dune terraces. The primary freshwater inputs to Monterey Bay are through the San Lorenzo, Pajaro, Salinas and Carmel Rivers but other numerous water bodies, such as those described above, flow into the Monterey Bay with peak flows occurring during storm events and during the wet winter months (Figure 4.11-1). Within the Project area, the SC WWTF discharges into Monterey Bay via an existing outfall located approximately 1 mile from the shore at a depth of approximately 110 feet. Waves and tides introduce turbulence, particularly in nearshore areas. Tides at Santa Cruz are mixed semi-diurnal, with an average range between mean high and mean low tides of 3.50 feet URS, 2013); and 5.3 feet between mean higher high and mean lower low tides. The oceanographic features primarily affecting waters of Monterey Bay are seasonal upwelling and the California Current System, which consists of the California Current, the California Undercurrent, and the Davidson Current. The California Current is a large scale upper ocean current that transports cold, subarctic water with lower salinity from the North Pacific south along the North American coast where it mixes with warm, saltier equatorial water (ESA, 2017). Beneath this near-surface current and relatively close inshore (within 100 kilometers or 62 miles), is the California Undercurrent that transports warm subtropical water northward. During winter months the California Undercurrent becomes the inshore countercurrent or Davidson current (Flow Science Inc., 2014). Seasonal upwelling and the California Current System and its influence on Monterey Bay water quality is discussed further under Surface Water Quality, below. Surface Water Quality The quality of surface water is primarily a function of land uses in the Project area. Urban development often results in the degradation of water quality due to the introduction of pollutants and erosion due to construction and development. Development and pervious pavement can result in increased runoff and higher velocities in creeks and streams. These changes can, in turn, cause erosion. Urban pollutants may include toxic metals, hydrocarbons, nutrients, suspended solids, and many other chemicals (City of Santa Cruz, 2011). Pollutants and sediments are transported in watersheds by stormwater runoff that reaches streams, rivers, storm drains, and reservoirs. Local land uses influence the quality of the surface water through point source discharges (i.e., discrete discharge from a wastewater treatment plant) and nonpoint source discharges (e.g., storm runoff). Some of the most prominent water quality problems in the Project area are sedimentation, pollutants in urban runoff, nutrient contamination, pathogens, and inorganic constituents. Water quality in the Project area is regulated by the CCRWQCB. Surface water quality for the primary water features in the Project area and Monterey Bay is described below. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Watersheds and Waterbodies Information pertaining to the water quality in each water body that intersects the Project area, as described under Surface Water Hydrology, above, is summarized in Table 4.11-1. Beneficial uses 1 of water bodies are identified by the RWQCB in its Basin Plan. When a water body exceeds the Basin Plan water quality objectives (WQOs), it is placed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list as “impaired” waters, and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL 2) must be established with the goal of restoring the beneficial use(s) of the water body. The Basin Plan is further described in Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework. Additionally, independent of TMDL designations, a number of waterbodies have been identified as having water quality issues, such as high sediment loads, that can impair beneficial uses (e.g., the quality of habitat for aquatic species). Significant sources and examples of activities that may generate key pollutants of concern within the described waterbodies are listed below (City of Santa Cruz, 2011): • Industrial facilities: industrial chemical processes; chemical and waste storage; fleet maintenance and vehicle washing; and landscaping. • Commercial businesses including food and vehicle service facilities: vehicle and equipment maintenance; food processing; vehicle washing; landscaping; and chemical and waste storage. • Residential dwellings: vehicle washing; home vehicle repair; home painting and construction projects; chemical and waste storage; pet waste; and landscaping. • Construction and remodeling projects: grading; vegetation removal; concrete washout; vehicle and equipment fluids; landscaping; and material and waste storage. • Municipal sewer system and private sewer laterals or septic systems: exfiltration from leaking, cracked, and debilitated pipelines or poorly designed/maintained septic systems; and overflows from blocked pipelines. Monterey Bay This section characterizes baseline water quality conditions in Monterey Bay with a focus on water quality constituents that are regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (see Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework, below, for additional information regarding water quality regulations). The beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean and coastal waters in and near the Project area include recreation, navigation, fishing, and preservation and enhancement of habitat for rare, threatened, or endangered species (Table 4.11-1). The information provided in Table 4.11-1 for the “Pacific Ocean” addresses the geographic range between Point Año Nuevo on the north and Soquel Point on the south, which includes the northern tip of Monterey Bay, near the Project area. This portion of the Pacific Ocean is included on the CWA Section 303(d) list as being impaired for shellfish harvesting beneficial uses due to dieldrin (discussed in detail below). Ocean climate, a physical driver that affects water quality in Monterey Bay, is also described here. 1 2 Aquatic resources provide many different benefits. Beneficial uses are those resources, services, and/or qualities of aquatic systems that are to be maintained and are the ultimate goals for protecting and achieving high water quality. The TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet the water quality standards. In general, a TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water TABLE 4.11-1 DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES OF SURFACE WATER BODIES IN THE PROJECT VICINITY X X X X X X X X X X X X Rodeo Gulch X X X X X Soquel Creek X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X E. coli, Fecal and Total Coliform, Nutrients X X X X N/A X X X X High Turbidity and pH X X X X Enterococcus, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Nutrients, Pathogens, Sediment, Turbidity X X X X X X X X X X X ASBS X X FRSH X X MAR X X NAV X REC-2 X X REC-1 X BIOL X MIGR EST COLD SHELL X WILD Schwann Lake Pacific Ocean (Point Año Nuevo to Soquel Point) X TMDL / Water Quality Concern WARM X Corcoran Lagoon SPWN X X X San Lorenzo River Estuary Arana Gulch COMM IND X RARE Neary Lagoon GWR AGR Water Bodies MUN Beneficial Uses N/A Pathogens, Sediment X X X Chlorpyrifos, E. coli, Fecal Coliform, Sediment PCBs, Dieldrin, Chlordanes, and DDTs NOTES: Beneficial uses not designated for Noble Gulch or Porter Gulch a Nearshore Zone is defined as the zone bounded by the shoreline and a line 1000 foot from the shoreline or the 30-foot depth contours, whichever is further from the shoreline. ACRONYMS: MUN – Municipal and Domestic Supply AGR – Agricultural Supply GWR – Groundwater Recharge IND – Industrial Service Supply COMM – Ocean, Commercial, and Sport Fishing SHELL – Shellfish Harvesting COLD – Cold Freshwater Habitat EST – Estuarine Habitat MIGR – Migration of Aquatic Organisms RARE – Preservation of Rare and Endangered Species SPWN – Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development BIOL – Preservation of biological Habitats of Special Significance WARM – Warm Freshwater Habitat WILD – Wildlife Habitat REC-1 – Water Contact Recreation REC-2 – Non-Contact Water Recreation NAV – Navigation MAR – Marine Habitat FRSH – Freshwater Replenishment ASBS – Areas of Special Biological Significance SOURCE: CCRWQCB 2011, EPA 2012, Santa Cruz County, 2017b Water Quality Constituents The water quality of Monterey Bay is a function, in part, of different constituents present in the water, as well as the seasonal ocean climate (discussed below) in the Bay that affects the concentration of the constituents present. The waters of Monterey Bay contain numerous legacy pesticides 3 such as organochlorine pesticides, Dieldrin and dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane (DDT), as well as chemical products in current use such as organophosphate pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). 4 Seasonal 3 4 Legacy pesticides are persistent pesticides that have been banned from use but are still commonly found in the environment. PCBs are also legacy contaminants. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water data collected by the Central Coast Long-term Environmental Assessment Network 5 (CCLEAN) between 2001 and 2013 indicate numerous instances where water quality objectives and human health alert levels in Monterey Bay were exceeded due to the presence of contaminants (CCLEAN, 2011 and 2014). Nearshore waters of Monterey Bay have failed to meet the Ocean Plan water quality objective for the protection of human health (i.e., concentrations are higher than numeric water quality objectives) for PCBs, Dieldrin, Chlordanes, and DDTs. Additional details related to water quality objectives and Monterey Bay water quality is provided in Section 4.11.3, below, under the subsection California Ocean Plan. As described above, in the Project area, Monterey Bay nearshore waters are listed on the CWA Section 303(d) list due to Dieldrin (USEPA, 2012). Dieldrin is an insecticide that was widely used from 1950 to 1974 to control insects in agricultural crops but has been banned in the United States since 1985 (USEPA, 2017). Dieldrin is a persistent organic compound that attaches to organic matter, sediments, and other particulates. Because of this, it bioconcentrates and biomagnifies through terrestrial and aquatic food chains. Resident mussels in this area have been found to contain levels of dieldrin that are higher than the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) screening value for the protection of human health from the consumption of fish and shellfish. Its concentration in water is typically very low (SWRCB, 2008). Monterey Bay also receives point source discharges from pipelines and other structures. These permitted discharges are subject to prohibitions and water quality requirements established by the Central Coast RWQCB such as effluent limitations, periodic monitoring, annual reporting, and other requirements designed to protect the overall water quality of Monterey Bay. In the Project area, some of these permitted discharges include stormwater discharges from the City of Santa Cruz and surrounding areas and treated wastewater from the SCWWTF. CCLEAN monitoring and reporting indicated that estimated loads of most persistent organic pollutants are much greater from rivers than from wastewater. There have been no bacterial impairments to the water contact recreation beneficial use associated with discharges from any of the CCLEAN WWTFs. There was only one sample at the far field receiving water monitoring station adjacent to the Santa Cruz WWTF discharge that exceeded the Ocean Plan Enterococcus single-sample objective for water contact recreation, and this is not considered an impairment of the beneficial use (CCLEAN, 2011; URS, 2013). Salinity and Temperature The seawater in Monterey Bay is a mixture of water masses from different parts of the Pacific Ocean with warmer, saltier water from the equatorial zone and colder, fresher water from the arctic regions. Near-shore surface temperatures vary from 46.4°F (8°C) during winter and early spring to 62.6°F (17°C) during fall. Near-shore surface salinities vary from 33.2 practical salinity units (psu) to 34.0 psu 6 when upwelling 7 is strong. Streams and rivers can locally affect salinity, 5 6 7 CCLEAN is a long-term water quality monitoring program designed to help municipal agencies and resource managers protect the quality of the nearshore marine waters in the Monterey Bay. CCLEAN is a collaborative program between the cities of Watsonville and Santa Cruz, MRWPCA, Carmel Area Wastewater District, Dynegy Moss Landing Power Plant, and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCLEAN, 2017). Unit used to measure salinity in terms of the concentration of dissolved salts in water. Equivalent to parts per thousand (ppt). Upwelling is the process by which the warmer water at the ocean surface is pushed away by wind and replaced by colder, denser water that rises up from the subsurface. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water but even during flood conditions, when freshwater inputs to Monterey Bay peak, the salinity of Monterey Bay surface waters does not fall below 31 psu (MBNMS, 2017). Dissolved Oxygen Dissolved Oxygen (DO) is typically used as a general index for the health of receiving waters (such as in the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California or Ocean Plan, discussed below in Section 4.11.3). Adequate DO is vital for aquatic life and higher concentrations are generally considered to be desirable. Dissolved oxygen content in water is, in part, a function of water temperature and salinity (discussed above). The ability of oxygen to dissolve in water decreases as the temperature and salinity of water increases. As the temperature and/or salinity of water increases, water loses the ability to hold dissolved oxygen and the concentration goes down. However, DO varies according to many other factors, including photosynthesis and biological and chemical oxygen demand associated with decomposition of organic material. Monterey Bay is a dynamic environment that includes variable concentrations of DO. Ambient DO levels in Monterey Bay at a depth of approximately 100 feet have ranged from 4.25 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 8.00 mg/L (KLI, 1998; KLI, 1999); typically, DO in the range of 5 to 8 mg/L is considered protective of fish and marine biota depending on the species and life-stage. Monterey Bay Ocean Climate Ocean climate refers to oceanographic conditions, including temperature, salinity, current, and wave patterns prevailing over a period of time. The climatic conditions within the Bay influences the seasonal density of Bay receiving waters which in turn can affect the mixing and dilution mechanics associated with municipal discharges, such as those from the SCWWTF, that can influence receiving water quality. There are three known ocean climate seasons in Monterey Bay MBNMS, 2017): • Upwelling Period: a wind-induced upwelling period that is characterized by strong currents, high salinities and cooler surface waters. Typically occurs March to September when steady northwesterly/westerly winds cause offshore transport of surface waters, resulting in deep, colder, nutrient-rich water to rise to the surface (upwelling). • Oceanic or California Current Period: characterized by average currents, low salinity and warmer water. Typically occurs September to November when winds relax and upwelling ceases, allowing previously upwelled water to sink and be replaced by warm oceanic waters from offshore. • Davidson Current Period (also called the “low thermal gradient phase”): characterized by slow currents and freshwater inputs (lower salinity). Typically occurs November to March when winter storm conditions prevail, causing downwelling in Monterey Bay and lower currents in the nearshore area. These three individual seasons overlap extensively and do not recur with exact consistency. Besides the ocean climate seasons, the physical mixing of the ocean water is influenced by the ocean water density (a function of salinity and temperature, described above), physical processes such as waves and currents, and physical features on the ocean floor. The physical mixing of Bay receiving waters with inputs from other sources (such as river inputs or municipal discharges) is enhanced by Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water turbulence induced by currents and waves. Current velocities can be different throughout the water column. Wave action, particularly during stormy periods, can vertically stir the water. When turbulence associated with ocean currents or surface waves exceed the threshold required for initiating motion of seabed materials, the resuspension of bottom sediments, which occurs naturally, can affect water quality by producing short-term and localized increases in suspended sediment concentrations and turbidity levels in near bottom waters. Suspended sediments also occur in surface waters following storm events that result in discharges from coastal rivers. Ocean currents may transport these river-derived sediments substantial distances alongshore or offshore from the origin. The ocean water density and the physical processes (waves and currents) vary as a result of seasonal weather cycles. Physical features on the ocean floor, such as regional bathymetry 8 and structures such as pipelines (which can influence localized mixing and dilution) also influence mixing and dilution dynamics. The bathymetry in the vicinity of the SCWWTF outfall structure is relatively flat with an average slope of 1 percent to the west of the diffuser for 5 miles. The rim of Monterey Submarine Canyon is less than 4 miles to the northwest of the Project area. Wastewater Treatment and Disposal The City of Santa Cruz operates a regional WWTF (SCWWTF) that provides service to approximately 135,000 people in the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and portions of unincorporated Santa Cruz County. The service areas beyond the City of Santa Cruz include: (1) the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District, which includes the Live Oak, Capitola, Soquel, and Aptos areas; and (2) Community Service Areas 10 and 57, which include a portion of the Graham Hill Road corridor. Municipal wastewater generated within the City limits is delivered to the WWTF via 160 miles of wastewater mains and 21 pumping stations (City of Santa Cruz, 2016). Additionally, the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District collects wastewater through a system of approximately 200 miles of wastewater mains and 34 pumping stations for treatment at the SCWWTF (City of Santa Cruz, 2016). The SCWWTF is next to Neary Lagoon (described under Surface Water Hydrology, above), just inland from the City’s Main Beach. The SCWWTF is designed to provide secondary treatment and to treat an average dry weather flow of 17 million gallons per day (mgd), and a peak wet weather flow of 81 mgd. The SCWWTF’s treatment process consists of screening, grit removal, flow equalization, primary sedimentation, biological treatment (trickling filters), secondary clarification, and disinfection (UV). Biosolids removed from the wastewater stream are treated by gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion, a cogeneration process and dewatering by centrifuges (Carollo, 2017). Treated effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean via a 2,100-foot outfall/diffuser system approximately 1 mile offshore at a depth of 110 feet. Santa Cruz operates the WWTF under a current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, renewed in 2017 by the RWQCB (Order No. R3-2017-0030, NPDES No. CA 0048194). See Section 4.11.3 for a 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2014) refers to bathymetry as the ocean’s depth relative to sea level, although it has come to mean “submarine topography,” or the depths and shapes of underwater terrain. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water description of the RWQCB permit process; and Santa Cruz’s NPDES permit conditions, which are summarized below to characterize the existing effluent discharge water quality. SCWWTF Flows The WWTF has an average dry weather (ADW) design capacity of 17 million gallons per day (mgd) and was designed to treat up to 81 mgd during peak hour wet weather [PHWW]. The 2014 average daily flow rate was approximately 8.1 mgd with a peak wet weather flow on the order of 65.0 mgd (Carollo, 2017; URS, 2013). Table 4.11-2 summarizes the monthly flows for 2014 including dry and wet weather flows. These values incorporate the recent drought and conservation measures implemented over the past few years. Approximately 0.15 to 0.2 mgd of treated water is retained for various uses at the treatment plant. These numbers may increase over time without the influence of drought or conservation measures. Projected future annual average wastewater flows from SCWWTF, forecasted based on planned population growth as well as conservation measures, are estimated to remain relatively consistent, increasing to approximately 8.29 mgd by 2035 (Carollo, 2017). TABLE 4.11-2 SANTA CRUZ WWTF 2014 MONTHLY FLOWS Month Influent (mgd) Effluent (mgd) January 8.14 8.02 February 9.01 9.00 March 9.52 9.12 April 8.65 8.58 May 7.60 7.28 June 7.45 7.26 July 7.27 6.58 August 6.42 6.15 September 6.78 6.08 October 6.86 6.18 November 6.94 6.85 December 12.67 12.24 Average 8.11 7.78 Max 12.67 12.24 Min 6.42 6.08 NOTES: These flows were monitored during an extended state-wide drought where conservation measures were mandated and implemented. These flows are significantly lower than observed during non-drought years. SOURCE: Carollo, 2017 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water In addition to municipal wastewater collection from the City and County areas, the City of Scotts Valley discharges approximately 1.0 mgd of treated municipal wastewater through the City of Santa Cruz’s ocean outfall. Scotts Valley treats its wastewater separately at its own treatment facility under a separate NPDES permit (CA 0048828, Order No. 97-12), but makes joint use of the Santa Cruz ocean outfall facility. The SCWWTF also has a dedicated septage-receiving facility that receives approximately 7.0 million gallons of septage per year (or approximately 19 thousand gallons per day) from septic systems in Santa Cruz County. Average daily discharge from the outfall from all sources combined is about 11.5 to 12.5 mgd during the dry season (City of Santa Cruz, 2016). Treated Wastewater Effluent Characteristics and Quality Water quality requirements for the City’s effluent discharge are established in the City’s NPDES permit (Order No. R3-2017-0030). The system's effluent water quality complies with the NPDES permit program and The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Region (Basin Plan) requirements for discharge to the Ocean (Carollo, 2017). Currently, the metals and other toxic chemical concentrations in the effluent are far below the limits allowed under the SCWWTF's NPDES permit. Recent (2005-2010) effluent quality data monitored at the SCWWTF indicate that the City’s effluent complies with NPDES permit concentration limitations (URS, 2013). The treated wastewater is discharged into the Pacific Ocean through the existing outfall/diffuser system. According to the City’s NPDES permit, the diffuser provides a minimum initial dilution of 139:1 (parts seawater to effluent) so that effluent leaving the diffuser system effectively mixes with ocean water. Water-quality–based effluent limitations established in the NPDES permit are based on this ratio. The temperature of the existing effluent, estimated to range from 63.7ºF (17.6ºC) in winter to 78.1ºF (25.5ºC) in summer, is warmer than the ambient seawater, which ranges from 47.3ºF (8.4ºC) to 61.4ºF (16.2ºC). Any discharge into the ocean would rise towards the surface, sink towards the bottom, or stay at the same level, depending upon the density difference between the effluent and the ambient water. Discharges where the effluent is less dense than the ambient water are considered positively buoyant and would rise once discharged. Discharges where the effluent is denser than the ambient water are considered negatively buoyant and would sink once discharged. Discharges where the effluent has the same density as the ambient water are neutrally buoyant and would neither sink nor rise. Under existing conditions, the SC WWTF effluent is made up of low-salinity wastewater, as compared to ocean water salinity, so it is less dense than ocean water and will always rise to the surface. Specifically, the salinity of wastewater effluent is about 0.5 part per thousand (ppt), compared to seawater, which ranges between about 32 to over 34 ppt. The temperature and salinity differences between the effluent and seawater contribute to the mixing and dilution of the effluent, as the warmer, less-dense effluent rises through the colder, denser ocean water. Flooding and Flood Hazards Flooding is inundation of normally dry land as a result of rise in the level of surface waters or rapid accumulation of stormwater runoff. Flooding can occur when excessive precipitation generates stormwater runoff that exceeds the carrying capacity of the drainage system. Flooding can also occur due to especially high tides, coastal storms, and/or sea level rise. Coastal flooding occurs when there is an increase in sea level, such as during high tides, during a period of extreme Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water precipitation and runoff. Wave run-up along coastal areas also contributes to coastal flooding. Storms in the Pacific Ocean in the months of November through February, in conjunction with high tides and strong winds, can cause significant wave run-up. Flooding may also occur as a result of tsunamis, seiches, dam or levee failure. Flood Hazard Zones The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) delineates regional flooding hazard areas in Santa Cruz County as part of the National Flood Insurance Program. Official Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Project area indicate areas that have a 1 percent chance of flooding in any given year (100-year flood hazard zone). The 100-year flood hazard zones along the coast experience flooding coincident with high tide events typically combined with a wintertime storm surge. The FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone in the Project vicinity is shown on Figure 4.11-2. The identified FEMA flood hazard zones for 100-year flood hazard risk are along the coast, and in narrow bands along the major streams that intersect the Project area (i.e., Arana Creek, Rodeo Gulch, and Soquel Creek). The exception is the San Lorenzo River, around which a large section of downtown Santa Cruz is designated as being within an A99 flood hazard zone. An A99 zone is an area protected from the 1 percent chance flood (i.e., 100-year flood) by a federal Flood Protection system under construction. FEMA re-designated much of the downtown and Beach Area from an area at risk of 100-year flooding, but for which no base flood elevations have been estimated, to the A99 Flood Zone designation in recognition of the significant flood improvements resulting from completion of the San Lorenzo River Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project. Under the A99 designation, new buildings and improvements are no longer mandated to meet FEMA flood construction requirements and flood insurance premiums are significantly reduced (City of Santa Cruz, 2011). A portion of the existing SCWWTF property, adjacent to Neary Lagoon, and segments of the proposed conveyance pipelines, where surface water features are crossed, are sited within a FEMA 100-year flood hazard zone. None of the other proposed facilities would be located within designated flood hazard areas. None of the proposed facilities would be located in areas at risk of inundation due to coastal flooding from high tide events coinciding with coastal storms and large waves. Tsunamis, Seiches, Dam and Levee Failure Tsunamis are ocean waves caused by an underwater earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Low-lying areas along the coast and areas around coastal watercourses at lower elevations are most vulnerable to tsunamis. California is at risk from both local and distant-source tsunamis. There has been minimal damage and loss of life in Santa Cruz during recorded history. However, a tsunami generated by a 9.0 magnitude earthquake in Japan in March 2011 reached Santa Cruz and caused substantial damage to the Santa Cruz Small Craft Harbor. Figure 4.11-2 shows the regional tsunami inundation hazard zone, as obtained from the Santa Cruz Quadrangle of the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (California Emergency Management Agency et al, 2009). The largest area of inland inundation is in downtown Santa Cruz, as a result of backwater in San Lorenzo River, Neary Lagoon, and Woods Lagoon. The map, based on very Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Å Ä 9 Å Ä 1 Chanticleer Site _ ^ _ ^ Path: J:\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Flood_Hazards1.mxd, wsm 4/5/2018 Cabrillo College North Headquarters-West Annex Site Santa Cruz Monterey Ave Willowbrook Lane # # Twin Lakes Church Cabrillo College South Capitola Å Ä ### 1 _ ^ Santa Cruz WWTF Project Components # Recharge Well (Options) _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Dam Inundation Area 0 1 Tsunami Flood Zone 100-Year Flood Zone Miles Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; FEMA, 2017; CDOC, 2017; CEMA, 2017 Figure 4.11-2 Flood Hazards 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water conservative assumptions, shows that the SCWWTF and segments of the proposed conveyance pipelines, where surface water features are crossed, might be inundated during an extreme event. Santa Cruz is susceptible to tsunami inundation primarily in coastal areas. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration operates a tsunami warning system that gives several hours notice to allow evacuation of threatened areas (City of Santa Cruz, 2012). Locally, tsunamis can be generated by movement on an offshore fault or by land sliding along the banks of the Monterey submarine canyon. The San Gregorio fault and Monterey Bay fault zone are both considered active, and capable of large earthquakes. However, these faults are not likely to produce large vertical offsets of the sea floor, and therefore are probably not likely to generate significant tsunamis. Submarine landslides in the Monterey submarine canyon; however, are a more likely local source of tsunamis. Many large landslides have been mapped along the flanks of the canyon. A particular hazard with a locally generated tsunami is that there is little warning time before the wave impacts the shoreline; a landslide generated tsunami in Monterey Bay could reach the coastline in 10 minutes from the time it was generated. Flooding as a result of a seiche or inundation due to dam or levee failure can also be a consideration for assessing flood hazards. A seiche is a rhythmic motion of water in a partially or completely enclosed (landlocked) large water body caused by landslides, earthquake-induced ground accelerations, or ground offset. Seiches can result in long-period waves that cause run-up or overtopping of adjacent landmasses, similar to tsunami runup. None of the Project facilities are located in close proximity to a large enclosed body of water capable of producing seiche waves. Flooding from dam failure can result from both natural and human causes, including earthquakes, erosion, improper siting and/or design, and rapidly rising floodwater during heavy storms. The type of failure, ranging from instantaneous to gradual, is dependent on the building material of the dam. Dam failure can potentially cause loss of life and property damage, displacement of persons residing in the inundation path, and damage to infrastructure. The SCWWTF and the area around the San Lorenzo River (where some pipeline segments would be located) is within the mapped dam inundation hazard area for Newell Creek Dam (Figure 4.11-2; City of Santa Cruz, 2008). There have been no reported dam failures for the Newell Creek facility (County of Santa Cruz, 2015). In Santa Cruz County, levees along portions of the San Lorenzo River were constructed as part of the San Lorenzo River Flood Control and Environmental Restoration Project (discussed under Flood Hazards, above). All of these levees and floodwalls are required to undergo periodic inspections for safety and performance as part of routine maintenance plans. Sea Level Rise Coastal flooding can be exacerbated by the physical characteristics of the continental shelf and shoreline. As part of the California Coastal Analysis and Mapping Project, FEMA is performing the Open Pacific Coast Study, a detailed coastal engineering analysis and mapping of the Pacific Coast of California. The results of the study will be used to remap the coastal flood risk and wave hazards for the California coastline, including Santa Cruz County (FEMA, 2018). Sea level rise at a global level is a phenomenon generally attributed to global climate change. Climate change is expected to result in more extreme weather events, both heavier precipitation events that can lead to flooding as well as more extended drought periods. According to a report Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 millimeters (0.07 inch) per year from 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 millimeters (0.12 inch) per year from 1993 to 2003 (IPCC, 2007). The National Research Council estimates sea level in California to rise by 4.6 to 24 inches by 2050 and 17 to 66 inches by 2100 (NRC, 2012). The Pacific Institute report (2009) predicts that sea level rise along the California coast could increase by 55 inches by 2100. This projection may be an underestimation because the climate models used did not account for ice-melt from Antarctica and Greenland (Pacific Institute, 2009). Based on monthly mean sea level data from 1973 to 2016, the mean sea level in Monterey Bay is increasing by approximately 1.39 millimeters (0.053 inches) per year, which is equivalent to a change of 0.46 feet in 100 years (NOAA, 2018). Sea level rise will likely increase related coastal hazards. As shown on Figure 4.11-3, within the Project area, the SC WWTF and various pipeline segments that cross surface water features would lie in areas that would be subject to coastal flooding and sea level rise. 4.11.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations Clean Water Act Regulatory authorities exist on both the state and federal levels for the control of water quality in California. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the federal agency responsible for water quality management pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977. The purpose of the CWA is to protect and maintain the quality and integrity of the nation’s waters by requiring states to develop and implement state water plans and policies. The relevant sections of the CWA are summarized below. CWA Section 303: Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans Section 303 of the CWA requires states to designate beneficial uses for water bodies or segments of water bodies and to establish water quality standards to protect those uses for all waters of the U.S. Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. Impaired waters are waters that do not meet water quality standards established by the state, even after point sources of pollution have been equipped with the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The law requires that these jurisdictions establish a priority ranking for listed waters and develop action plans to improve water quality. Inclusion of a water body on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies triggers development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for that water body and a plan to control the associated pollutant/stressor on the list. The TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant/stressor that a waterbody can assimilate and still meet the water quality standards. Typically, a TMDL is the sum of the allowable loads of a single pollutant from all contributing point and nonpoint sources. Impaired water bodies in the Project area, including the pollutants that cause the impairments, and the potential sources of the pollutants are discussed under Section 4.11.2, above. Prior to issuance of any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for construction activities, operational discharges, or licenses (discussed below), a review and authorization process by the CCRWQCB is required to ensure such permits and licenses are Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Å Ä 17 Headquarters-West Annex Site Å Ä 9 Å Ä 1 Chanticleer Site Path: Path:J:\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Sea_Level_Rise.mxd, J:\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Sea_Level_Rise.mxd, wsm wsm 4/5/2018 4/5/2018 _ ^ Santa Cruz Willowbrook Lane _ ^ # Monterey Ave Cabrillo College North # Twin Lakes Church Cabrillo College South Capitola Å Ä 1 _ ^ 0 Santa Cruz WWTF ### 1 Miles Areas Subject to Sea Level Rise (2100) Project Components # Recharge Well (Options) _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; Pacific Institute, 2009 Figure 4.11-3 Areas Subject to Coastal Flooding from Sea Level Rise 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water protective of designated beneficial uses and water quality and that TMDL requirements are incorporated as permit conditions in a manner consistent with relevant plans, policies, and guidelines. CWA Section 401: Water Quality Certification Section 401 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §1341) requires any applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters, including the crossing of rivers or streams during road, pipeline, or transmission line construction, to obtain a certification from the State in which the discharge originates. The certification ensures that the discharge will comply with the applicable effluent limitations and water quality standards. The State agency responsible for implementing section 401 of the CWA in California is the Regional Water Quality Control Board. CWA Section 402: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) The NPDES permit program under section 402 of the CWA is one of the primary mechanisms for controlling water pollution through the regulation of sources that discharge pollutants into waters of the United States. The USEPA has delegated authority of issuing NPDES permits in California to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), which has nine regional boards. The CCRWQCB regulates water quality in the Project area. The NPDES permit program is discussed in detail under State Regulations, below. California Toxics Rule, 40 CFR 131.38 On May 18, 2000, the USEPA promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other provisions for water quality standards to be applied to waters within California. USEPA promulgated this rule based on the Administrator’s determination that the numeric criteria are necessary in California to protect human health and the environment. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a state court overturned the state's water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. Thus, the state of California has been without numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA, necessitating this action by USEPA. These federal criteria are legally applicable in the state of California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries for all purposes and programs under the CWA. The USEPA and the SWRCB have the authority to enforce these standards, which are incorporated into the NPDES permits that regulate existing discharges in the Project area. National Marine Sanctuaries Act and MBNMS Regulations Originally referred to as the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the primary purpose of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA or Act) is to identify, designate and manage areas of the marine environment of special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic qualities. Under the NMSA, it is unlawful for any person to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure any sanctuary resource managed under law or regulations for that sanctuary. NMSA general regulations define sanctuary resource as any living or nonliving resource that contributes to the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational or aesthetic value of the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water sanctuary, including any algae and other marine plants, marine invertebrates, brine-seep biota, phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals. MBNMS was designated as a National Marine Sanctuary in 1992 in recognition that the area provides a highly productive ecosystem and a wide variety of marine habitat, including outstanding concentrations of pinnipeds, whales, otters, and seabirds, abundant fish stocks, a variety of crustaceans, and invertebrates. In addition to the statutes under the NMSA, each sanctuary has unique regulatory prohibitions codified within a separate subpart of 15 CFR Part 922. Subpart M contains the regulations specific to MBNMS. The importance of sanctuary resources relevant to water quality is emphasized among the MBNMS statutory, regulatory, and management priorities. MBNMS regulations that are relevant to the operation of the Project include a prohibition on discharging material or other matter into the sanctuary. Operational discharges into sanctuary waters would require MBNMS authorization of an NPDES permit issued by the RWQCB. NOAA may also issue Special Use Permits to establish conditions of access to, and use of, any sanctuary resource or to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary resource. Special Use Permits may only be authorized if that activity is compatible with the purposes for which the sanctuary is designated and with protection of sanctuary resources; and that activities carried out under the permit be conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources. NOAA (MBNMS) Memorandum of Agreement with State and Federal Agencies NOAA (MBNMS) entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MBNMS et al., 2003) with the State of California, USEPA, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, which addresses the process for implementing the following water quality regulations applicable to State waters within MBNMS: • NPDES permits issued by the State of California under Section 13377 of the California Water Code; and • Waste Discharge Requirements issued by the State of California under Section 13263 of the California Water Code. The Memorandum of Agreement specifies how the review process for applications for leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or other authorizations will be administered within State waters in MBNMS in coordination between the State and the Sanctuary’s permit programs. The MBNMS Superintendent develops and follows a management plan that ensures protection of these resources, provides for research and education, and facilitates recreational and commercial uses that are compatible with the primary goal of resource protection. MBNMS also implements the Water Quality Protection Program to enhance and protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the sanctuary. The program is a partnership of many local, state, and federal government agencies and calls for education, funding, monitoring, and development of treatment facilities and assessment programs to protect water quality (MBNMS, 2018). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 provides for management of the nation’s coastal resources and balances economic development with environmental conservation. In 1990, Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) to address nonpoint source pollution problems in coastal waters. The California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction for CZMA implementation throughout the state. Section 6217 of CZARA and Section 319 of the CWA require California and 28 other states to develop coastal nonpoint source pollution control programs that incorporate required management measures to reduce or prevent polluted runoff to coastal waters from specific sources. Management measures are defined in Section 6217 of the CZARA as economically achievable measures to control the addition of pollutants to coastal waters, which reflect the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable through the application of the best available nonpoint pollution control practices, technologies, processes, siting criteria, operating methods, or other alternatives. These management measures are incorporated by states into their coastal nonpoint source pollution programs and coastal management programs. The California Coastal Commission (CCC), through the California Coastal Act, applies the water quality policies of the CZARA when reviewing federally licensed and permitted activities to ensure they are consistent with the State’s coastal management program in accordance with the CZMA federal consistency provision. The California Coastal Act contains numerous enforceable policies that are directed at protecting and, where feasible, restoring coastal water quality. See discussion under State Regulations, below, of how the CZMA is regulated at the State level. Executive Order 11988 and National Flood Insurance Program Under Executive Order 11988, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for management of floodplain areas, defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year (representing the 100-year flood hazard zone). Also, FEMA administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which requires that local governments covered by federal flood insurance enforce a floodplain management ordinance that specifies minimum requirements for any construction within the 100-year flood zone. To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, FEMA has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps that can be used for planning purposes, including floodplain management, flood insurance, and enforcement of mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements. Specifically, the NFIP requires that participating communities adopt certain minimum floodplain management standards, including restrictions on new development in designated floodways, a requirement that new structures in the 100-year floodplain be elevated to or above the 100-year flood level (known as base flood elevation), and a requirement that subdivisions be designed to minimize exposure to flood hazards. Participating communities agree to adopt and enforce ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA requirements to reduce the risk of flooding. In Santa Cruz County, the NFIP program is overseen by the County Planning Department’s Floodplain Management Program. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water State Regulations Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Division 7 of the California Water Code) provides the basis for water quality regulation within California. This Act establishes the authority of the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs. The SWRCB administers water rights, sets State policy for water pollution control, and implements various water quality functions throughout the State, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and most enforcement activities. The Project is within jurisdiction of the CCRWQCB. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires the SWRCB and/or the RWQCBs to adopt statewide and/or regional water quality control plans, the purpose of which is to establish water quality objectives for specific water bodies. In the Central Coast region, the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan), serves as the legal, technical, and programmatic basis of water quality regulation in the region and along the coast. The Act also authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to implement the NPDES program, which establishes discharge limitations and receiving water quality requirements for discharges to waters of the United States. The Act also authorizes the NPDES program under the CWA, which establishes effluent limitations and water quality requirements for discharges to waters of the State. The Basin Plan and the NPDES permits relevant to the Project are discussed further below. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin (Basin Plan) The Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all regional terrestrial surface water bodies (e.g., creeks, rivers, streams, and lakes), groundwaters, coastal drainages, estuaries, coastal lagoons, and enclosed bays within the CCRWQCB’s jurisdictional area. The preparation and adoption of Basin Plans are required by California Water Code Section 13240. According to Water Code Section 13050, Basin Plans establish the beneficial uses to be protected for the waters within a specified area, water quality objectives to protect those uses, and an implementation program for achieving the objectives. Because beneficial uses, together with their corresponding water quality objectives, can be defined per federal regulations as water quality standards, the Basin Plans are regulatory references for meeting the state and federal requirements for water quality control. The water quality objectives are thus incorporated into NPDES permits (discussed in detail below). The Basin Plan is designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect beneficial uses of all waters. Specifically, it: • Designates beneficial uses for surface and ground waters; • Sets narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and conform to the State’s anti-degradation policy; and • Describes implementation programs for achieving objectives to protect all waters in the Region. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water In addition, the Basin Plan incorporates all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations. Table 4.11-1 lists the water bodies relevant to the Project along with beneficial uses identified by the CCRWQCB. Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California The Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean Plan), adopted by the SWRCB in May 2015 and effective January 2016, establishes water quality requirements and objectives for California’s ocean waters and provides the basis for regulation of wastes discharged into the state’s coastal waters (SWRCB, 2016). The plan applies to point and nonpoint source discharges. Both the SWRCB and the six coastal RWQCBs implement and interpret the Ocean Plan. The Ocean Plan identifies the applicable beneficial uses of marine waters. These beneficial uses include preservation and enhancement of designated Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), rare and endangered species, marine habitat, fish migration, fish spawning, shellfish harvesting, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, mariculture, industrial water supply, aesthetic enjoyment, and navigation. The water quality requirements and objectives of the Ocean Plan are incorporated into NPDES permits for ocean discharges. Ocean Plan Water Quality Objectives The Ocean Plan establishes a set of narrative and numerical water quality objectives (WQO) to protect beneficial uses. These objectives are based on bacterial, physical, chemical, and biological characteristics as well as radioactivity. Table 4.11-3 presents the numeric WQOs for water quality constituents established in the Ocean Plan. The WQOs in the Ocean Plan apply to all receiving waters under the jurisdiction of the plan and are established for the protection of aquatic life and for the protection of human health from both carcinogens and noncarcinogens. The WQOs detail 21 objectives for protecting aquatic life, 20 for protecting human health from noncarcinogens, and 42 for protecting human health from exposure to carcinogens. The Ocean Plan also includes an implementation program for achieving WQOs. Operational Discharges regulated under the NPDES permit program are required to meet effluent limitations that incorporate the WQOs of the Ocean Plan, established for the protection of marine waters. The Ocean Plan water quality objectives are to be met after the initial dilution of a discharge into the ocean. The Ocean Plan defines initial dilution as the process which results in the rapid and irreversible turbulent mixing of wastewater with ocean water around the point of discharge. Initial dilution occurs in an area known as the zone of initial dilution (ZID), within which the density of the discharge is substantially different from that of the receiving water. Typically, constituent concentrations are permitted to exceed water quality objectives within the ZID, which is limited in size. Thus, in the case of the Project, the Ocean Plan water quality objectives would apply at the edge or boundary of the ZID. Dilution occurring within the ZID from an operational discharge is conservatively calculated as the minimum probable initial dilution 9 (Dm). The water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are considered in the context of the Dm to derive the NPDES effluent limits for a wastewater discharge in-pipe (i.e., prior to ocean dilution). 9 Minimum initial dilution, expressed as parts seawater to parts effluent or brine, is the process which results in the rapid and irreversible turbulent mixing of wastewater with ocean water around the point of discharge. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water TABLE 4.11-3 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN THE 2016 OCEAN PLAN Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Marine Life Limiting Concentrations Units of Measurement 6-month Median Daily Maximum Instantaneous Maximum Arsenic µg/L 8 32 80 Cadmium µg/L 1 4 10 Chromium (Hexavalent) µg/L 2 8 20 Copper µg/L 3 12 30 Lead µg/L 2 8 20 Mercury µg/L 0.04 0.16 0.4 Nickel µg/L 5 20 50 Selenium µg/L 15 60 150. Silver µg/L 0.7 2.8 7 Zinc µg/L 20 80 200 Cyanide µg/L 1 4 10 Total Chlorine Residual µg/L 2 8.0 60 Ammonia (expressed as Nitrogen) µg/L 600 2400 6000 Acute Toxicity1 TUa N/A 0.3 N/A Chronic Toxicity1 TUc N/A 1 N/A Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated) µg/L 30 120 300 Chlorinated Phenolics µg/L 1 4 10 Endosulfan µg/L 0.009 0.018 0.027 Endrin µg/L 0.002 0.004 0.006 HCH µg/L 0.004 0.008 0.012 Not to exceed limits specified in Tile 17, Division 1, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4, Group 3, Article 3, Section 30253 of the California Code of Regulations. Radioactivity Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Noncarcinogens 30-day Average (micrograms per liter or µg/L) Chemical Decimal Notation Scientific Notation Acrolein 220 2.2 x 102 Antimony 1,200 1.2 x 103 bis(2-chloroethoxy) methane 4.4 4.4 x 100 bis(2-chloroisopropyl) ether 1,200 1.2 x 103 570 5.7 x 102 chlorobenzene chromium (III) di-n-butyl phthalate dichlorobenzenes diethyl phthalate dimethyl phthalate 4,6-dinitro-2-methylphenol 2,4-dinitrophenol ethylbenzene fluoranthene hexachlorocyclopentadiene nitrobenzene Thallium Toluene Tributyltin 1,1,1-trichloroethane Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 190,000 3,500 5,100 33,000 820,000 220 4.0 4,100 15 58 4.9 2 85,000 0.0014 540,000 4.11-23 1.9 x 105 3.5 x 103 5.1 x 103 3.3 x 104 8.2 x105 2.2 x 102 4.0 x 100 4.1 x103 1.5 x 101 5.8 x 101 4.9 x 100 2. x 100 8.5 x 104 1.4 x 10-3 5.4 x 105 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water TABLE 4.11-3 (CONTINUED) WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES IN THE 2016 OCEAN PLAN Water Quality Objectives for Protection of Human Health-Carcinogens 30-day Average (micrograms per liter or µg/L) Chemical acrylonitrile Aldrin Benzene Benzidine Beryllium bis(2-chloroethyl) ether bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate carbon tetrachloride chlordane chlorodibromomethane chloroform DDT 1,4-dichlorobenzene 3.3’-dichlorobenzidine 1,2-dichloroethane 1,1-dichlorethylene dichlorobromomethane dichloromethane 1,3-dichloropropene Dieldrin 2,4-dinitrotoluene 1,2-diphenylhydrazine halomethanes heptachlor heptachlor epoxide hexachlorobenzene hexachlorobutadiene hexachloroethane isophorone N-nitrosodimethylamine N-nitrosodi-N-propylamine N-nitrosodiphenylamine Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) TCDD equivalents 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane tetrachloroethylene toxaphene trichloroethylene 1,1,2-trichloroethane 2,4,6-trichlorophenol vinyl chloride Decimal Notation Scientific Notation 0.10 0.000022 5.9 0.000069 0.033 0.045 3.5 0.90 0.000023 8.6 130 0.00017 18 0.0081 28 0.9 6.2 450 8.9 0.00004 2.6 0.16 130 0.00005 0.00002 0.00021 14 2.5 730 7.3 0.38 2.5 0.0088 0.000019 0.0000000039 2.3 2.0 0.00021 27 9.4 0.29 36 1.0 x 10-1 2.2 x 10-5 5.9 x 100 6.9 x 10-5 3.3 x 10-2 4.5 x 10-2 3.5 x 100 9.0 x 10-1 2.3 x 10-5 8.6 x 100 1.3 x 102 1.7 x 10-4 1.8 x 101 8.1 x 10-3 2.8 x 101 9 x 10-1 6.2 x 100 4.5 x 102 8.9 x 100 4.0 x 10-5 2.6 x 100 1.6 x 10-1 1.3 x 102 5 x 10-5 2 x 10-5 2.1 x 10-4 1.4 x 101 2.5 x 100 7.3 x 102 7.3 x 100 3.8 x 10-1 2.5 x 100 8.8 x 10-3 1.9 x 10-5 3.9 x 10-9 2.3 x 100 2.0 x 100 2.1 x 10-4 2.7 x 101 9.4 x 100 2.9 x 10-1 3.6 x 101 NOTE: 1 Toxicity is expressed as Toxicity Units for the measurement of either acute or chronic toxicity (TUa or TUc). Toxicity is determined by testing the percent of wastewater that results in 50% survival of test organisms using standard bioassay techniques and marine test species specified in the Ocean Plan. SOURCE: SWRCB, 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water NPDES Waste Discharge Program The federal Clean Water Act established the NPDES program to protect the water quality of receiving waters of the United States. Under the Clean Water Act, Section 402, discharging pollutants to receiving waters of the United States is prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES permit. In California, administration of the NPDES program has been delegated by the USEPA to the SWRCB. The SWRCB administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the State, while the RWQCBs conduct planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. Through the nine RWQCBs, point source dischargers are required to obtain NPDES permits (or, in California under authority of PorterCologne, Waste Discharge Requirements). Point sources include municipal and industrial wastewater facilities and stormwater discharges. Effluent limitations serve as the primary mechanism in NPDES permits for controlling discharges of pollutants to receiving waters both from construction activities and from discharges from operation of municipal or industrial facilities. When developing effluent limitations for an NPDES permit, a permit applicant must consider limits based on both the technology available to control the pollutants (i.e., technology-based effluent limits) and limits that are protective of the water quality standards of the receiving water (i.e., water quality-based effluent limits 10 if technology‐based limits are not sufficient to protect the water body.). For inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries, the water‐quality‐based effluent limitations are based on criteria in the National Toxics Rule and the California Toxics Rule, and objectives and beneficial uses defined in the applicable Basin Plan. For ocean discharges, such as under the Project, the Ocean Plan contains beneficial uses, water quality objectives, and effluent limitations (described in detail above). There are two types of NPDES permits: individual permits tailored to an individual facility and general permits that cover multiple facilities or activities within a specific category. The NPDES permits relevant to construction and operation of the Project are described below. NPDES Construction General Permit The State of California adopted a Construction General Permit on September 2, 2009 (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012-0006-DWQ) (General Construction NPDES Permit or CGP). The General Construction NPDES Permit regulates construction site stormwater management. Dischargers whose projects disturb one or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the general permit for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. The Project would be required to comply with the permit requirements to control stormwater discharges from the construction sites. Construction activity subject to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling or excavation, as well as construction of buildings and linear underground projects (LUP), including installation of water pipelines and other utility lines. Portions of the Project would fall under the Type 1 LUP category if the following conditions are met: 10 Water quality-based effluent limits specify the level of pollutant (or pollutant parameter), generally expressed as a concentration, that is allowable Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water • Construction occurs on unpaved improved roads, including their shoulders or land adjacent to them; • The areas disturbed during a single construction day are returned to their preconstruction condition, or to an equivalent condition (i.e., disturbed soils such as those from trench excavation are hauled away, backfilled into the trench, and/or placed in spoils piles and covered with plastic), at the end of that same day; • Vegetated areas disturbed by construction activities are stabilized and revegetated at the end of the construction period; and • When required, adequate temporary soil stabilization best management practices (BMPs) are installed and maintained until vegetation has reestablished to meet the permit’s minimum cover requirements for final stabilization. In the Project area, the Construction General Permit is implemented and enforced by the CCRWQCB, which administers the stormwater permitting program. To obtain coverage under this permit, Project operators must electronically file Permit Registration Documents, which include a Notice of Intent, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and other compliance-related documents. An appropriate permit fee must also be mailed to SWRCB. The SWPPP identifies BMPs that must be implemented to reduce construction effects on receiving water quality based on potential pollutants. The BMPs identified are directed at implementing both sediment and erosion control measures and other measures to control potential chemical contaminants. In addition, the SWPPP is required to contain a visual monitoring program and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods, installing sediment barriers such as silt fence and fiber rolls, and maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction. Non-stormwater management measures include installing specific discharge controls during certain activities, such as paving operations, vehicle and equipment washing and fueling. The SWPPP also includes descriptions of the BMPs to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges after all construction phases have been completed at the site (post-construction BMPs). Dischargers are responsible for notifying the RWQCB of violations or incidents of non-compliance, as well as for submitting annual reports identifying deficiencies of the BMPs and how the deficiencies were corrected. The Construction General permit includes several new requirements (as compared to the previous Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ), including risk-level assessment 11 for construction sites, an active stormwater effluent monitoring and reporting program during construction (for Risk Level II and III sites), rain event action plans for certain higher risk sites, 12 and numeric effluent limitations (NELs) for pH and turbidity as well as requirements for qualified professionals that prepare and implement the plan. The risk assessment and SWPPP must be prepared by a State-qualified SWPPP Developer and implementation of the SWPPP must be 11 The Construction General Permit defines three levels of risk (Risk Level I, II, and III) that may be assessed for a construction site. Risk is calculated based on the “project sediment risk”, which determines the relative amount of sediment that can be discharged given the project and location details, and the “receiving water risk” (the risk sediment discharges pose to the receiving waters). 12 Those sites that have a high potential for mobilizing sediment in stormwater and drain to a sediment-sensitive waterbody. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water overseen by a State-qualified SWPPP Practitioner. Project construction activities would be consistent with the Construction general Permit; compliance is required by law and the provisions of the permit and BMPs for construction and post-construction phases have proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites and downgradient receiving waters. RWQCB Dewatering Requirements NPDES General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality Construction of the proposed facilities would require excavation and trenching activities. Such activities in areas with shallow groundwater or that are located adjacent to surface water bodies could require dewatering to create a dry area. Discharges of dewatering effluent to the local stormwater drainage system or to vegetated upland areas are conditionally exempt provided they meet the water quality criteria in the General Waste Discharge Requirements (General WDRs). The CCRWQCB requires that the dewatering effluent be tested for possible pollutants; the analytical constituents for these tests are generally determined based on the source of the water, the land use history of the construction site, and the potential for the effluent to impact the quality of the receiving water body. The General WDRs NPDES General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001) applies to low-threat discharges, which are defined as discharges containing minimal amounts of pollutants and posing little or no threat to water quality and the environment. Discharges that meet the following criteria are covered under this permit: a) Pollutant concentrations in the discharge do not: (1) cause, (2) have a reasonable potential to cause, or (3) contribute to an excursion above any applicable water quality objectives, including prohibitions of discharge; b) The discharge does not include water added for the purpose of diluting pollutant concentrations; c) Pollutant concentrations in the discharge will not cause or contribute to degradation of water quality or impair beneficial uses of receiving waters; d) Pollutant concentrations in the discharge do not exceed the limits in the permit unless the Executive Officer determines that the applicable water quality control plan (i.e., Ocean Plan and/or State Implementation Policy) does not require effluent limits; e) The discharge does not cause acute or chronic toxicity in receiving waters; and f) The discharger demonstrates the ability to comply with the requirements of this General Permit. The Project-related discharges that could fall under the General WDRs include: discharges of construction excavation dewatering effluent; water produced from one-time draining of existing pipelines to construct new connections; and disinfection water from these same existing pipelines and newly constructed pipelines before being put into service, all of which could be discharged to vegetated upland areas or to the local stormwater drainage system. These discharges may be treated and discharged on a continuous or a batch basis. For discharges from construction sites smaller than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or that may cause Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water significant water quality impacts, the discharge may require coverage under the construction stormwater permit or an individual NPDES permit. Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements California Water Code Section 13269 authorizes the RWQCB to waive Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for specific discharges or specific types of discharges where such a waiver is consistent with any applicable State or regional water quality control plan and is in the public interest. Waivers may be granted for discharges to land and may not be granted for discharges to surface waters or conveyances thereto that are subject to the federal Clean Water Act requirements for NPDES permits. Under the Project, drilling fluids, such as water, bentonite mud, or environmentally inert biodegradable additives, could be used for well construction or trenchless pipeline construction. The threat to water quality of such materials depends primarily on the additives used. If the drilling fluids are free of appreciable additives (additive quantities in conformance with industry standards), the used slurry may be spread on pastures or fields, provided that contact with surface water is avoided and runoff is prevented. The water extracted during well development falls under the category of “water supply discharges” in the General Waiver. Water supply discharges that would occur under the Project include all water produced during drilling and development of the proposed recharge and monitoring wells. Under the General Waiver, these discharges would be waived from WDRs and from the requirement of submitting a waste discharge report; however, they would be subject to the following conditions. Water Supply Well Drilling Muds: a) The discharge shall be spread off site over an undisturbed, vegetated area capable of absorbing the top-hole water and filtering solids in the discharge and spread in a manner that prevents a direct discharge to surface waters. b) The pH of the discharge shall be between 6.5 and 8.3. c) The discharge shall not contain oil or grease. 13 d) The discharge area shall not be within 100 feet of a stream, body of water, or wetland, nor within streamside riparian corridors. Water Supply Discharges: a) The discharger shall implement appropriate management practices to dissipate energy and prevent erosion. b) The discharger shall implement appropriate management practices to preclude discharge to surface waters and surface water drainage courses. The discharger shall immediately notify the CCRWQCB staff of any discharge to surface waters or surface water drainage courses. 13 Oil and grease includes hydraulic fluids. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water c) The discharge shall not have chlorine or bromine concentrations that could impact groundwater quality. d) The discharge area shall not be located within 100 feet of a stream, body of water, or wetland, nor within streamside riparian corridors. NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit The Municipal Stormwater Permitting Program regulates stormwater discharges from municipal separate storm sewer (drain) systems. Stormwater runoff and authorized non-storm flows (conditionally exempt discharges) are regulated under NPDES stormwater permits. Phase I NPDES permits require medium and large cities, or certain counties with populations of 100,000 or more to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. Phase II permits require regulated small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in urbanized areas, as well as small MS4s outside the urbanized areas that are designated by the permitting authority, to obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges. The MS4 permits require the discharger to develop and implement a Stormwater Management Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), the performance standard specified in CWA §402(p), typically through the application of BMPs. The management programs specify what BMPs will be used to address certain program areas. The Phase II Program contains six Minimum Control Measures: • Public Education and Outreach; • Construction Site Runoff Control; • Public Participation/Involvement; • Post-Construction Runoff Control; and • Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination; • Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping. In July 2013, the Central Coast RWQCB adopted Resolution No. R3-2013-0032, which prescribes new Post-Construction Requirements for projects that create or replace 2,500 square feet or more of impervious area and receive their first discretionary approval for design elements after March 6, 2014. The resolution allows for implementation of the Central Coast Post-Construction Requirements in the Central Coast (Section E.12.k, Order No. 2013- 0001-DWQ). Additionally, the resolution requires permittees to identify and describe each post-construction stormwater BMP and associated measurable goal, included in the Permittee’s most current SWMP, that constitutes a more specific local or tailored level of implementation that may be more protective of water quality than the minimum requirements of the Phase II Municipal General Permit. The County of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola have developed a joint SWMP. The City of Santa Cruz has also developed a SWMP. These areas are covered under the MS4 General Permit (Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ Permit No. CAS000004). The developed SWMPs covering the Project area are based on the requirements and guidelines of the MS4 General Permit and are designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants in urban runoff to the maximum extent practicable and to protect water quality. In addition to the six required control programs referred to above, each SWMP also includes programs for industrial and commercial facilities. The programs include urban runoff control policies, site visits, and the implementation of BMPs. Mandatory BMPs have been developed and are described in the BMP Manual, which is appended to each SWMP. For example, the City of Santa Cruz Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Control regulations (Municipal Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Code Chapter 16.19) require the implementation of the mandatory BMPs provided in the City’s BMP Manual. BMPs that are relevant to the Project include the following requirements: a) Low-Impact Development (LID) design measures intended to mimic the pre-Project site hydrology and protect water quality must be incorporated during the site planning and design process. LID methods disperse and infiltrate runoff from impervious surfaces through: (1) conservation of natural areas; (2) reduction of pavement and use of pervious pavements [impervious/pervious ratio should not exceed 2 to 1]; (3) detaining and retaining runoff; (4) use of vegetated buffers, depressed landscape areas, rain gardens, and bio-retention areas in the drainage design; and (5) directing runoff from roof downspouts and paved areas to landscape BMPs. A “Storm Water and LID Assessment” checklist must be submitted with a Grading Permit application. b) Peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and sediment loading shall not exceed the estimated pre-development rate. Structural devices, such as sediment basins or swales, may be required to meet this goal. c) All structural or treatment control BMPs shall incorporate either a volumetric or flow-based treatment control design standard, or both, to mitigate stormwater runoff. This design standard is typically based on the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. d) Stormwater pollutants of concern (e.g., oil and grease, sediment, metals, pesticides) must be minimized to the fullest extent practicable through the implementation of LID features or treatment control BMPs. e) Commercial and industrial projects must implement additional requirements related to loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, vehicle/equipment wash areas, chemical/material/waste storage, leak and spill cleanup, pavement cleaning, employee training, and other requirements. f) Project construction activities where grading exceeds 50 cubic yards (CY) must obtain a Grading Permit. The permit application must include an erosion control plan and construction BMPs. Projects equal to or larger than 1 acre must also comply with the Statewide Construction General Permit. g) Projects with over 22,500 square feet of impervious surfacing infiltrate runoff from the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event on site, including peak flow management for 2-year and 10-year storm events. If on-site conditions limit the ability to fully infiltrate the runoff at this rate, projects will have to ensure treatment of the runoff from the 85th percentile 24-hour rainfall event. Santa Cruz WWTF NPDES Discharge Permit The discharge of brine through the existing wastewater outfall would require a modification of the existing NPDES permit. The discharge would be required to comply with limitations in the Ocean Plan (Table 4.11-3) beyond the zone of initial dilution. Discharges from the City of Santa Cruz WWTF are regulated by the NPDES Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTF Discharge Permit) (Order No. R3-2017-0030, NPDES No. CA 0048194), issued by the Central Coast RWQCB. The permit mandates a removal efficiency for total organic carbon, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand, and total suspended solids (TSS) of not less than 85 percent, and sets effluent limitations for metals, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water chlorine residual, ammonia, toxicity, phenolic compounds, and other constituents for the protection of marine aquatic life. Eighteen non-carcinogenic and 42 carcinogenic chemicals are also regulated for protection of human health. Effluent limitations apply to discharges measured in the outfall pipe prior to mixing with ambient water. The constituents listed with effluent limitations in the permit are consistent with Ocean Plan water quality objectives recognizing the initial dilution of treated effluent at the point of discharge of 139:1 (seawater to effluent). Effluent limitations are typically a factor of 139 above the Ocean Plan water quality objectives. In addition, the permit states that effluent shall be essentially free of materials and substances that: • Float or become floatable upon discharge; • Form sediments that degrade benthic communities or other aquatic life; • Accumulate to toxic levels in marine waters, sediment, or biota; • Decrease the natural light to benthic communities and other marine life; and • Result in aesthetically undesirable discoloration of the ocean surface. The NPDES permit also sets receiving water limitations such that the discharge shall not cause certain water quality objectives to be violated upon completion of initial dilution. The receiving water limitations address physical and chemical characteristics of the receiving water, including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, nutrients, organic material, and dissolved sulfide, as well as biological characteristics, including prohibitions on “degradation” to vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant communities, alteration of the natural taste, odor, and color of marine resources used for human consumption, and the bioaccumulation to toxic levels of organic material in marine resources used for human consumption. Under the findings of the permit, the outfall diffuser configuration is documented as achieving a minimum initial dilution of 139:1 (parts seawater to effluent) such that effluent leaving the diffuser system effectively mixes with ocean water. A detailed monitoring and reporting program is required under the NPDES permit to analyze short-term and long-term effects of the discharge on receiving waters, sediments, biota, and beneficial uses of the receiving water, and to assess compliance with the NPDES permit and the Ocean Plan. The NPDES permit also requires that notification be made of any new industrial users that discharge to the wastewater treatment facilities or the outfall. Statewide NPDES General Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges The SWRCB is responsible for issuance of NPDES permits for discharges from drinking water systems to surface waters in California (Order No. WQ 2014-0194, NPDES No. CAG140001). Drinking water systems with 1,000 connections or greater that are regulated by the State Board Division of Drinking Water or a local county department of public health, with the primary purpose of transmitting, treating, or distributing safe drinking water are subject to the permit requirements. The Order provides regulatory coverage for short-term or seasonal planned and emergency (unplanned) discharges resulting from a water purveyor’s essential operations and maintenance activities undertaken to comply with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and the State Water Board’s Division of Drinking Water permitting requirements for providing reliable delivery of safe drinking water. Such discharges Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water include, but are not limited to, discharges from supply wells, transmission systems, water treatment facilities, water distribution systems, and storage facilities. Planned discharges include regularly scheduled, automated, or non-regularly scheduled activities that must take place to comply with regulations and that the water purveyor knows in advance will result in a discharge to surface water. Emergency discharges include unplanned discharges that occur due to facility leaks, system failures, operational errors, or catastrophic events for which the water purveyor is not aware of the discharge until after the discharge has commenced. Planned and emergency discharges may occur directly, through a constructed storm drain or through another conveyance system, to waters of the U.S. Discharges of a pollutant from a drinking water system, regardless of the size of the system, are required to be regulated by an NPDES permit if the discharges flow into a water of the U.S. Discharges authorized under the Order are determined to not adversely affect or impact beneficial uses of the receiving waters when properly managed through BMPs. Any discharges that are likely to cause or contribute to an exceedance of a water quality objective other than those granted an exception under the State Water Board Resolution 2014-0067, are not authorized under the Order. Requirements of this general permit implement the Ocean Plan water quality objectives and TMDL requirements and are applicable to discharges directly into the Ocean or indirectly via a stormwater system that drains into the Ocean. All discharges regulated under this permit must implement BMPs for the treatment or control of pollutants from pipeline disinfection discharges to protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters. Thermal Plan The Water Quality Control Plan for Control of Temperature in the Coastal and Interstate Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (or Thermal Plan) adopted by the SWRCB in 1995 establishes temperature requirements for existing and new discharges in California coastal waters, interstate waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. Water quality objectives for existing discharges into coastal waters require that wastes with elevated temperature comply with limitations necessary to assure protection of designated beneficial uses. The Thermal Plan defines new discharges as “discharges that are not presently taking place” and elevated-temperature wastes as “liquid, solid, or gaseous material including thermal waste 14 discharged at a temperature higher than the natural temperature of receiving water”. The Thermal Plan establishes the following standards for all new discharges: • The maximum temperature of thermal waste discharges shall not exceed the natural temperature of receiving waters by more than 20°F. • The discharge of elevated temperature wastes shall not result in increases in the natural water temperature exceeding 4°F at the shoreline, the surface of any ocean substrate, or the ocean surface beyond 1,000 feet from the discharge system. The surface temperature limitation shall be maintained at least 50 percent of the duration of any complete tidal cycle. 14 Cooling water and industrial process water used for the purpose of transporting waste heat. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Anti-Degradation Policy The SWRCB Anti-Degradation Policy, formally known as the Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Water in California (SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16), restricts degradation of surface and ground waters. Specifically, this policy protects water bodies where existing quality is higher than necessary for the protection of beneficial uses and requires that existing high quality be maintained to the maximum extent possible. Under the Anti-Degradation Policy, any actions that can adversely affect water quality in all surface and groundwaters must: (1) be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of California; (2) not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of the water; and (3) not result in water quality less than that prescribed in water quality plans and policies. Furthermore, any actions that can adversely affect surface waters are also subject to the federal Anti-Degradation Policy (40 CFR Section 131.12) developed under the CWA. Discharges from the Project that could affect surface water quality would be required to comply with the AntiDegradation Policy, which is included as part of the NPDES permit requirements for point discharges (discussed below). California Coastal Act of 1976 The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.) provides for the longterm management of lands within California’s coastal zone boundary. The coastal zone is an area in which the CCC plans and regulates the use of land and water. On land the coastal zone varies in width from several hundred feet in highly urbanized areas up to five miles in certain rural areas, and offshore the coastal zone includes a three-mile-wide band of ocean. Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of local coastal programs (LCPs) that are required to be completed by each of the coastal zone counties and cities. Development within the coastal zone may not commence until a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) has been issued by either the CCC or the local government that has a CCC-certified LCP. Development activities are broadly defined by the Coastal Act to include (among others) construction of buildings, divisions of land, and activities that change the intensity of use of land or public access to coastal waters. The Coastal Act includes specific policies for management of natural resources and public access within the coastal zone. Of primary relevance to surface water hydrology and water quality are Coastal Act policies concerning protection of the biological productivity and quality of coastal waters. For example, Article 4 of the Act details policies specific to the marine environment, such as biological productivity and water quality. Specifically, the Act requires the quality of coastal waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of wastewater discharges, controlling runoff, and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging wastewater reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 30231). Portions of the Project could be located within the coastal zone (pipelines, recharge and monitoring wells, and a water purification facility at the SC WWTF) and development would Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water require a CDP. There are three LCP jurisdictions of relevance to the Project: City of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, and County of Santa Cruz, all of which have a certified and adopted LCP and therefore has jurisdiction to issue a CDP. Additionally, because the CCC retains CDP jurisdiction over development proposed on the immediate shoreline, open coastal waterways (i.e., San Lorenzo River Estuary) tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands (Coastal Act Section 30601), construction may also require a CDP from the CCC. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Nonpoint Source (NPS) pollution does not originate from regulated point sources and comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution occurs when rainfall flows off the land, roads, buildings, and other features of the landscape. This diffuse runoff carries pollutants into drainage ditches, lakes, rivers, wetlands, bays, and aquifers. The NPS Program aims to minimize NPS pollution from land use activities in agriculture, urban development, forestry, recreational boating and marinas, hydromodification and wetlands as these activities are the leading cause of water pollution in California waters. The NPS Program Plan addresses California's NPS pollution by assessing the State's NPS pollution problems/causes and implementing management programs. The NPS Program goal is to achieve water quality goals and maintain beneficial uses. The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to develop a program to protect the quality of water resources from the adverse effects of NPS water pollution. CZARA requires California and other states to ensure that management practices which reduce or prevent polluted runoff are implemented. The Porter-Cologne Act designates the SWRCB and RWQCBs as the State agencies with primary responsibility for water quality control in California and obligates them to address all discharges of waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, including potential nonpoint sources of pollution. In accordance with Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and Section 6217 of the CZARA (described above), SWRCB and the California Coastal Commission jointly submitted the Plan for NPS Pollution Control Program to the USEPA and NOAA on February 4, 2000. The NPS Pollution Control Program provides a single unified, coordinated statewide approach to address nonpoint source pollution (USEPA, 2012). The SWRCB and CCC are the lead agencies for implementing California's NPS Program, in partnership with the nine RWQCBs. A total of 28 state agencies are working collaboratively through the Interagency Coordinating Committee to implement the NPS Pollution Control Program. In obligating the SWRCB and RWQCBs to address all discharges of waste that can affect water quality, including nonpoint sources, the legislature provided the SWRCB and RWQCBs with administrative permitting authority in the form of administrative tools (i.e. WDRs, waivers of WDRs, and Basin Plan prohibitions) to address ongoing and proposed waste discharges. Hence, all current and proposed NPS discharges must be regulated under WDRs, waivers of WDRs, or a basin plan prohibition, or some combination of these administrative tools. Local Regulations California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e) provides that facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water supplies are exempt from local (i.e. city and county) building and zoning ordinances. The proposed facilities evaluated in this EIR all Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water relate exclusively to the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water and are, therefore, legally exempt from local building and zoning ordinances. However, they would not be exempt from the requirements of Local Coastal Programs. Local Coastal Programs As described under State Regulations, above, the Coastal Act transfers coastal permit processing authority from the Coastal Commission to local governments upon the adoption of a Local Coastal Program (LCP). An LCP must contain planning policies and land use designations relating to the coastal zone and Coastal Act as well as regulations and programs necessary to carry out the LCP. The policies and regulations defined in a LCP guide both coastal planning and permit processing. The California Coastal Act requires that LCPs determine where and the extent to which various land uses and coastal activities are appropriate and necessary within the Coastal Zone and to issue land-use permits accordingly. There are three LCP jurisdictions of relevance to the Project: City of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, and County of Santa Cruz, all of which have a certified and adopted LCP and therefore has jurisdiction to issue a CDP. The following is a description of LCP policies relevant to coastal planning and the issuance of coastal permits related to construction, water quality, storm drainage, and flooding hazards. Santa Cruz County LCP Erosion Control Plan (SCCC 16.22.060) Prior to issuance of a building permit, development permit or land division, an erosion control plan indicating proposed methods for the control of runoff, erosion, and sediment movement shall be submitted and approved. Erosion control plans shall include, as a minimum, the following measures related to management of runoff and seasonal restrictions: Runoff Management • Additional measures or modification of proposed measures may be required by the Planning Director prior to Project approval. No grading or clearing may take place on the site prior to approval of an erosion control plan for that activity. Final certification of Project completion may be delayed pending proper installation of measures identified in the approved erosion control plan. • Runoff from activities subject to a building permit, parcel approval or development permit shall be properly controlled to prevent erosion. The following measures shall be used for runoff control, and shall be adequate to control runoff from a 10-year storm: • On soils having high permeability (more than two inches/hour), all runoff in excess of predevelopment levels shall be retained on the site. This may be accomplished using infiltration basins, percolation pits or trenches, or other suitable means. • On projects where on-site percolation is not feasible, all runoff should be detained or dispersed over non-erodible vegetated surfaces so that the runoff rate does not exceed the predevelopment level. On-site detention may be required by the Planning Director where excessive runoff would contribute to downstream erosion or flooding. Any policies and regulations for any drainage zones where the Project is located will also apply. • Any concentrated runoff which cannot be effectively dispersed without causing erosion shall be carried in non-erodible channels or conduits to the nearest drainage course Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water designated for such purpose by the Planning Director or to on-site percolation devices. Where water will be discharged to natural ground or channels, appropriate energy dissipators shall be installed to prevent erosion at the point of discharge. • Runoff from disturbed areas shall be detained or filtered by berms, vegetated filter strips, catch basins, or other means as necessary to prevent the escape of sediment from the disturbed area. • No earth or organic material shall be deposited or placed where it may be directly carried into a stream, marsh, slough, lagoon, or body of standing water. Seasonal Restrictions • No land clearing operations greater than one acre per year per site or grading operations greater than 100 CY may take place between October 15th and April 15th, unless authorized by the Planning Director and found to be consistent with the purposes of this chapter. When construction will be delayed due to the limitation on winter operations, the date for expiration of the permit shall be extended by that amount of time that work is delayed by this chapter. • When winter operations are permitted, the following measures shall be taken to prevent accelerated erosion: − Between October 15th and April 15th, disturbed surfaces not involved in the immediate operations shall be protected by mulching and/or other effective means of soil protection as required by the Planning Director. − All roads and driveways shall have drainage facilities sufficient to prevent erosion on or adjacent to the roadway or on downhill properties. Erosion-proof surfacing may be required by the Planning Director in areas of high erosion hazard. − Runoff from a site shall be detained or filtered by berms, vegetated filter strips, and/or catch basins to prevent the escape of sediment from the site. These drainage controls shall be maintained by the permittee and/or property owner as necessary to achieve their purpose throughout the life of the Project. − Erosion control measures shall be in place at the end of each day’s work. − The Planning Director shall stop operations during periods of inclement weather if he determines that erosion problems are not being controlled adequately. Wastewater Discharge Permit (SCCC 7.78.040) All new wastewater discharges into the Monterey Bay or the coastal waters of Santa Cruz County and any proposed expansion of wastewater discharges shall require a permit from the department. Applicants for such permits shall be required to submit, at a minimum, the following information and studies: • Three years’ monitoring records identifying the existing characteristics of wastewater entering treatment facilities and of the wastewater discharge. Three years’ monitoring records identifying the existing characteristics of wastewater entering any industrial user’s pretreatment facilities and of the wastewater discharge from those facilities. Records of any past accidental spills or discharges of inadequately treated wastewater. Particular areas of Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water concern include toxic chemicals, toxic metals, bacteria and other indicators identified as threats to the health and safety of coastal waters. • Comprehensive projections of anticipated future wastewater entering treatment (and pretreatment) facilities, and the proposed wastewater discharges from those facilities; both quantitative and qualitative characteristics must be specifically identified. • Complete information on levels of treatment proposed at the treatment and pretreatment facilities. This information shall also include reliability and efficiency data of the proposed treatment. • A comprehensive monitoring plan for testing of wastewater (both at treatment and pretreatment facilities) to ensure ongoing treatment is adequate. • Oceanographic studies to determine the most suitable location and methods for discharge into the ocean. • Tests of ocean waters at the proposed discharge site and surrounding waters to establish baseline or background levels of toxic chemicals, toxic metals, bacteria and other water quality indicators. These tests must be performed no more than one year prior to submittal of the proposal. Historical data may not be substituted for this requirement. • Toxicity studies to determine the impacts of the proposed wastewater discharges on marine life, as well as on recreational uses of the coastal waters, and the possible impacts if the proposed treatment and/or pretreatment programs fail and untreated or improperly or partly treated wastewaters are discharged. • A study identifying and analyzing alternative methods of wastewater disposal. This shall include hydrogeologic studies of the applicant’s groundwater basin to determine the water quality problems in that area and if land disposal will have an adverse impact on groundwater quality. The information and studies and the results of requirements described above must be submitted to the County’s Health Officer for evaluation and are subject to approval as to the information and studies provided and as to the results thereof. A wastewater discharge permit shall be issued only if the above information demonstrates that the proposed wastewater discharge will not degrade marine habitats; will not create hazardous or dangerous conditions; and will not produce levels of pollutants that exceed any applicable local, State or Federal water quality standards. The County Health Officer is empowered to establish implementing regulations and policies for determining which information and studies shall be required and the extent thereof. The administrative policies developed by the Health Officer include a provision for public notice of the issuance of any wastewater discharge permit. If information submitted indicates the potential presence of hazardous pollutants in the proposed wastewater discharge for which State or Federal water quality standards have not yet been established, no permit shall be issued until such time as it is clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Health Officer that the proposed wastewater discharge will not degrade marine habitats or create hazardous or dangerous conditions. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-37 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water City of Santa Cruz LCP Water Quality Policies and Programs 2.1: Meet or exceed State Water Resources Control Board standards for discharge of sewage and storm waters to the Monterey Bay. 2.1.2: Implement policies and recommendations resulting from the joint County Hazardous Materials Ocean Response Plan. 2.3: Ensure that new development or land uses near surface water and groundwater recharge areas do not degrade water quality. 2.3.1: Design and site development to minimize lot coverage and impervious surfaces, to limit post-development runoff to predevelopment volumes, and to incorporate storm drainage facilities that reduce urban runoff pollutants to the maximum extent possible. 2.3.1.3: Require low-flow-velocity, vegetated open channels, area drains incorporating grease and sediment traps, groundwater recharge facilities and detention ponds directly connected to impervious areas. 2.3.1.5: Ensure that all parking lots, roads, and other surface drainages that will flow directly into coastal waters have oil, grease and silt traps. 2.3.1.6: Require a maintenance program and oil, grease and silt traps for all parking lots over 10 spaces and also investigate methods of retrofitting existing parking lots with grease, oil and silt traps. City of Capitola LCP Marine and Stream Quality Water Policy VI-4: Parking lot and stream drains, and storm water run-off culverts shall be improved by installing energy dissipators and sand traps or other types of grease/sediment traps in conjunction with new development or intensification of use. Policy VI-5: The City shall, as a condition of new development, ensure that run-off does not significantly impact the water quality of Capitola’s creeks and wetlands through increased sedimentation, biochemical degradation or thermal pollution. Policy VI-6: The City shall enact regulations to control erosion and runoff Flooding The General Plan states that no new development should take place within the 100-year flood plain of Soquel Creek unless federal flood plain standards are met. The zoning ordinance includes a flood plain zoning overlay and flood plain regulations which are applied to the 100-year flood plain as designated by FEMA. The flood plain ordinance does not allow new construction or substantial improvement in the designated flood way and requires that such development in the flood plain be elevated above the flood height for residential construction or flood-proofed for commercial development. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-38 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water 4.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on surface water hydrology and water quality if it would: • Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; • Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or off site; • Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; • Otherwise substantially degrade water quality; • Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map; • Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow; • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee, dam, or coastal flooding due to sealevel rise. Approach to Analysis The potential effects of the Project are evaluated for impacts on surface water hydrology and water quality during Project construction, operations and maintenance. The impact analyses determine whether, and to what degree, the Project could change the existing hydrology, water quality, and flooding conditions described in Section 4.11.2. Construction and operation of the Project would be regulated by the various laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies summarized in the Regulatory Framework. Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations is assumed in the analysis of impacts because these regulatory requirements are mandatory and the application of the associated protective measures (such as BMPs, Monitoring and Reporting Plans, and the application of corrective actions) are non-discretionary, and are proven to minimize and/or avoid hydrologic or water quality impacts. Further, regulatory agencies with technical jurisdiction and authority for oversight would require adherence to regulatory requirements as a condition of Project or permit approval and would continue to enforce applicable requirements throughout Project construction and operation phases. Compliance with these regulations, which is mandatory, would reduce potential effects of Project construction and operation as intended by the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-39 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water policies described in Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework. The severity of an impact is determined using the significance criteria identified above. The baseline conditions against which the potential direct and indirect impacts of the Project are assessed are the quality of surface water resources within the study area at the time of the issuance of the Notice of Preparation, including the reported ambient water quality parameters and constituent levels (described in Section 4.11.2, above), and the existing regulatory framework relevant to construction and operation of the Project. Construction-related effects on surface water hydrology and water quality relate to direct and indirect impacts that could occur during site preparation and clearing, excavation, dewatering, and demobilization and site restoration. Operational impacts involve long-term effects related to facility siting, operational discharges, and maintenance activities. The impact analysis is organized by construction impacts first followed by operational impacts. The evaluation of construction impacts is based on assumptions regarding Project construction activities, existing site conditions, and the applicable water quality objectives established by the Construction General Permit. The evaluation of operational impacts is based on assumptions regarding operational discharges and any potential post-construction or long-term effects from building the new facilities (such as increases in storm runoff from addition of impervious surfaces). Additionally, the assessment of operational discharges is based on analyzing adverse impacts on water quality and the environment in the context of and against the requirements specified in the Ocean Plan water quality objectives (SWRCB, 2016). Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Place Housing within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Zone. The Project would not involve construction of new housing within a 100-year flood hazard zone. Therefore, the significance criterion related to the placement of housing within a 100-year flood hazard zone is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Expose People or Structures to Inundation by Seiche, or Mudflow. As described in Section 4.11.2, there is a very low probability of a seiche occurring in the Project area. The Project would have no effect on the frequency or probability of seiches (i.e., earthquake-induced oscillating waves in an enclosed water body) because the Project would not create new enclosed water bodies or affect the frequency of earthquakes. Due to the relatively flat topography of the Project area, Project implementation would not expose people or property to increased mudflow hazards. Therefore, no impact related to inundation by seiche or mudflow would result, and these criteria are not discussed further. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.11-4. The detailed impact discussion follows. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-40 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water TABLE 4.11-4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – HYDROLOGY RESOURCES – SURFACE WATER Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.11-1: Project construction could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. LSM Impact 4.11-2: Project operation would not violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. LS Impact 4.11-3: Project facilities would not alter drainage patterns such that there is a resultant increase in erosion, siltation, flooding or the rate or amount of surface runoff such that the capacity of an existing or planned stormwater drainage system is exceeded. LS Impact 4.11-4: Project facilities would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area and impede or redirect flood flows or could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee, or coastal flooding due to tsunami or sea-level rise. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Impact Discussion Impact 4.11-1: Project construction could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project construction activities at all Project locations (Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites, Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site, Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, treated effluent (source water) pipeline, brine pipeline, and purified water pipeline) would involve site clearing, earthmoving, excavation, soil stockpiling, and temporary storage and use of chemicals, such as fuel. Excavations necessary for building foundations and underground facilities could intercept shallow or perched groundwater, requiring temporary localized dewatering to create a dry work area and facilitate construction. New pipelines or connections between existing and new pipelines would need to be drained and disinfected prior to service, requiring the management and disposal of pipeline disinfection discharges. The potential for water quality impacts to occur from these construction activities is assessed here for direct and indirect water quality impacts. General Construction Activities (Applies to all Project Components) Earthmoving activities associated with Project construction would include demolition of existing structures and facilities, site clearing, grading, soil stockpiling, excavation and backfilling. Prior to construction mobilization, the contractor(s) would prepare construction work areas and staging areas by removing vegetation and debris and grading these areas to provide a relatively level surface. Open excavations would also be required for construction of buildings and aboveground structures. These general construction activities could mobilize and transport pollutants off site by stormwater, potentially degrading the water quality of receiving waters. Soil disturbing activities, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-41 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water such as excavation and site clearing, could cause soil erosion and initiate the migration of soil and sediment in stormwater runoff to downgradient water bodies and storm drains. If not properly managed, sediment from stockpiled spoils could migrate off site during rain events and could increase sedimentation in downstream receiving waters bodies. Construction activities could also result in the accidental release of hazardous construction chemicals such as adhesives, solvents, fuels, and petroleum lubricants that, if not managed appropriately, could adhere to soil particles, become mobilized by rain or runoff, and degrade water quality. Project construction activities associated with the Project facilities would disturb more than one acre of soil, and would therefore would be subject to the requirements of the NPDES Construction General Permit (CGP). Under the CGP requirements, a Legally Responsible Person (LRP) is identified for permit coverage. The Applicant’s contractor can be designated as the LRP’s approved signatory. As required under the CGP, a SWPPP would be prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) and a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) would oversee its implementation. The SWPPP, which would include specific measures and conditions to reduce or eliminate stormwater flow that transport pollutants or sediment from the related construction activities, would be implemented throughout the duration of construction activities. As discussed in Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework, the SWPPP is required to include specific elements such as erosion and stormwater control measures that would be implemented on site. At a minimum, the SWPPP must include the following: • A description of construction materials, practices, and equipment storage and maintenance; • A list of pollutants likely to contact stormwater and site-specific erosion and sedimentation control practices; • A list of provisions to eliminate or reduce discharge of materials to stormwater; • BMPs for fuel and equipment storage; • Non-stormwater management measures to manage pollutants generated by activities such as paving operations and vehicle and equipment washing and fueling; • The requirement that the appropriate equipment, materials, and workers be available to respond rapidly to spills and/or emergencies. All corrective maintenance or BMPs must be performed as soon as possible, depending upon worker safety; and • On-site post-construction controls. Examples of typical construction BMPs include scheduling or limiting certain activities to dry periods of the year, installing sediment barriers such as silt fencing and fiber rolls, maintaining equipment and vehicles used for construction, and tracking controls such as stabilization of construction access points. The development and implementation of BMPs such as overflow structures designed to capture and contain any materials that are inadvertently released from storage containers on the construction site is also required. In accordance with the CGP, a Rain Event Action Plan would be required to ensure that active construction sites have adequate erosion and sediment controls in place prior to the onset of a storm event, even if construction is planned only during the dry season. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-42 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water The LRP would also be required to develop and implement a monitoring program as required under the CGP. The monitoring program would require inspections of the construction site to be conducted prior to anticipated storm events and after the actual storm events by a QSD or QSP. During extended storm events, the inspections would be conducted after every 24-hour period. The inspections would be conducted to: identify areas contributing to stormwater discharge; evaluate whether measures to reduce pollutant loadings identified in the SWPPP are adequate, were properly installed, and are functioning in accordance with the CGP; and determine whether additional control practices or corrective measures are needed. Compliance with the CGP is required by law and has proven effective in protecting water quality at construction sites as well as off site for downgradient receiving waters. Mandatory compliance with the CGP requirements would prevent significant construction-related impacts on water quality during general construction activities for all Project facilities and components. Mandatory compliance with the water quality protection requirements of the CGP and the accompanying regulatory process, including preparation and implementation of a SWPPP by a QSD/QSP, implementation of monitoring and reporting by the LRP for compliance, and the application of corrective actions and additional control measures to ensure continued compliance based on monitoring results, would ensure that Project construction is consistent with the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 4.11.3. Because the CGP regulatory requirements are non-discretionary, the Project cannot acquire construction permits without providing a SWPPP and a construction project that does not comply with the implementation of required BMPs, monitoring and reporting would be subject to a cease-anddesist order and fines. Adherence to such requirements, as well as the requirements for erosion control and runoff management associated with the City of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, and County of Santa Cruz LCP policies (which would be implemented through issuance of a CDP) ensures that necessary controls to minimize soil erosion, manage runoff, and protect water quality from the mobilization and transport of pollutants in stormwater or construction related discharges are in place prior to and during construction activities. Therefore, impacts relating to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or creating additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrading water quality as a result of general construction activities for all Project locations (Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites, Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Sites, Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, treated effluent (source water) pipeline, brine pipeline, and purified water pipeline) would be less than significant. Construction Excavation Dewatering Activities (Applies to all Project Components) This discussion addresses the potential for Project excavation activities to intercept shallow or perched groundwater and require temporary localized dewatering to create a dry work area and facilitate construction. Dewatering typically involves the extraction of shallow groundwater and subsequent discharge into nearby storm drains or, where storm drains are not available, into temporary storage tanks, lined surface storage ponds or vegetated upland areas for infiltration into the ground. Dewatering effluent may contain pollutants (e.g., sediment, residual petroleum hydrocarbons and elevated heavy metals) that require removal prior to discharge to avoid Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-43 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water potential water quality impacts (see Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for discussion of sites with known soil and/or groundwater contamination). The dewatering of contaminated groundwater during construction excavation activities would be considered a significant impact if contaminated groundwater (i.e., dewatering effluent) were not managed properly and were released untreated into stormwater drains that discharge to surface or groundwaters. Such a release would violate water quality standards and waste discharge requirements and degrade the water quality of receiving waters. As discussed in Section 4.11.3 under NPDES Waste Discharge Program, permit requirements and WDRs regulate discharges of treated and untreated groundwater from temporary construction dewatering activities. The majority of the dewatering effluent produced during construction and excavation is considered a low threat and could be discharged to land or the stormwater drainage system provided it complies with the General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001) (see Section 4.11.3). All WDRs must implement the Basin Plan water quality objectives and/or water quality prohibitions. The construction contractor(s) would be required to control, test, and treat the extracted water as needed to minimize or avoid water quality degradation, erosion, and sedimentation in the receiving waters. To receive coverage under the General WDRs, the Applicant (or their contractor) would submit a NOI along with the following materials to the CCRWQCB: • A list of all chemicals (including Material Safety Data Sheets) added to the water and the concentrations of such additives in the discharged effluent; • Certified analytical results of the effluent for all priority toxic pollutants listed in Attachment D of the General WDRs. These analyses would fulfill the requirements set forth in the California Toxics Rule to evaluate the potential for water quality degradation and establish effluent limits, unless the discharge meets all requirements for a conditional exception; • Certified analytical results of representative samples of the receiving surface water collected 50 feet upstream and 50 feet downstream from the point of discharge, respectively. Alternately, if access is limited, the samples can be collected at the first point upstream and downstream of the discharge, respectively, that is accessible for the following constituents: pH, temperature, color, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen; • For low-threat discharges from proposed facilities, analytical data for discharges from similar existing facilities, or information regarding the anticipated discharge characteristics of the proposed facility based on the specific facility design. As part of facility startup, the Applicant would submit all analytical results required in Section A of the General WDRs; and, • If the concentration of any constituent in the effluent sampled under the second bullet above exceeds the applicable criterion listed in Attachment D of the General WDRs, the Applicant would submit a Reasonable Potential Analysis 15 consistent with Section 1.3 of the State Implementation Policy or Appendix VI of the Ocean Plan, as applicable. As discussed in Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework, and in the bulleted list above, the Applicant (or contractor) would be required to test the dewatering effluent for possible pollutants. 15 A Reasonable Potential Analysis is the process for determining whether any of the constituents in a discharge causes, has reasonable potential to cause, or contributes to an exceedance of a water quality standard. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-44 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water The analytical constituents for such tests are generally based on the source of the water, the land use history of the construction site, and potential impacts on the quality of the receiving water. If the dewatering effluent meets the water quality requirements of the General WDRs, the District’s construction contractor(s) would discharge the dewatering effluent to vegetated upland areas or the local storm drain system in accordance with the General WDRs. It is assumed most dewatering effluent would meet the water quality requirements of the General WDRs and be disposed of directly in accordance with the General WDRs. If the dewatering effluent contains contaminants that exceed the requirements of the General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001), as determined by testing prior to discharge, the construction contractor would contain the dewatering effluent in a portable holding tank for appropriate treatment and discharge/disposal on site or off site, as described in Section 3.6.6, Construction Water. Permissible options under established regulations for disposal of such dewatering discharge include: a) on-site treatment then discharge to sanitary sewer or over land; or, b) discharge to mobile storage tanks (e.g., Baker Tanks™) then haul off site. Such treatment is standard industry practice and is a proven method for avoiding the discharge of pollutants from construction dewatering activities. Mandatory compliance with the water quality protection requirements of NPDES Permit No. CAG993001 and other regulatory requirements would ensure that Project dewatering discharges associated with construction excavations are conducted in a manner consistent with the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 4.11.3, and that dewatering discharge pollutant concentrations do not exceed water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality or deleteriously affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Further, because the General WDR regulatory requirements are non-discretionary, construction dewatering would not occur unless the Applicant or their contractor obtained coverage under the General WDRs. Therefore, impacts relating to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or creating additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrading water quality as a result of from excavation dewatering during construction for all Project components (Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site, SC WWTF, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites, Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site, Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, treated effluent (source water) pipeline, brine pipeline, and purified water pipeline) would be less than significant. Discharges of Water Produced During Well Drilling, Well Development, and Trenchless Pipeline Installation (Recharge and Monitoring Wells and Pipeline Segments Constructed Utilizing Trenchless Construction Methods) Construction activities associated with the proposed recharge and monitoring wells would involve: drilling the borehole (well drilling); constructing the well inside the borehole by installing the well casing and well screens and filling the annulus around the casing with a gravel (filter) pack and cement seal (well construction); and then surging water in and out of the well screen openings to clean the borehole and properly settle the gravel pack (well development). Construction activities associated with trenchless pipeline installation methods include jack-andbore, drill-and-burst, horizontal directional drilling, or microtunneling. Pipeline segments proposed along heavily congested underground utility corridors or through sensitive habitat areas Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-45 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water would likely be installed using horizontal directional drilling or microtunneling. Horizontal directional drilling could also be used for installation of pipeline segments that would cross beneath Highway 1 and beneath drainages and culverts. Jack-and-bore methods would likely be used beneath railroad crossings. As described in Section 3.6.4, Construction Activities, Construction Equipment, and Construction Workforce, horizontal directional drilling fluids would vary depending on soil conditions around the trenchless installation. Typically, drilling fluids would consist of bentonite clay and a polymer. Commercially available additives, such as polymers, could be combined with the drilling water to increase fluid viscosity and stabilize the walls of the boring to prevent reactive shale and clay from swelling and caving into the hole. Other products used to enhance the drilling performance help reduce the buildup of solids, decrease friction, and aid in reducing solids suspension. Drilling mud additives are commonly used by the well drilling industry for the drilling and installation of groundwater wells. Because the additives are combined with the water and are circulated through the borehole annulus during drilling, they react locally within the borehole and do not migrate into the surrounding groundwater formation. The additives are noncorrosive, biodegradable and do not contain chemicals that would contaminate the groundwater supply. The effluent produced during well construction and trenchless segments for pipeline installation, which may contain soil cuttings, drilling fluids, and formation water (water present at depth in geologic materials), would be stored in tanks on site during construction and then disposed offsite at an authorized disposal facility, as described in Chapter 3, Project Description, Section 3.6.6. The effluent produced during well development would be pumped to Baker Tanks to allow sediment to settle out and subsequently discharged once turbidity is within the allowable discharge levels (see Section 3.6.6). The clarified effluent would be considered a “Water Supply Discharge” under the General Waiver of WDRs for Specific Types of Discharges (General Waiver) (RWQCB Resolution R3-2014-0041). Other development water from wells, following construction but prior to operation (e.g., from well pump testing), would be discharged under the District’s Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Order WQ 2014-0194-DWQ) or under the General Waiver. In addition, if not disposed of off-site at an authorized disposal facility, the following conditions of the General Waiver would apply for the disposal of effluent or drilling muds: • The discharge shall be spread over an undisturbed, vegetated area capable of absorbing the top-hole water and filtering solids in the discharge, and spread in a manner that prevents a direct discharge to surface waters; • The pH of the discharge shall be between 6.5 and 8.3; • The discharge shall not contain oil or grease; • The discharge area shall not be within 100 feet of a stream, water body, wetland, or streamside riparian corridor; • The discharger shall implement appropriate management practices to dissipate energy and prevent erosion; Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-46 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water • The discharger shall implement appropriate management practices to preclude discharge to surface waters and surface water drainage courses; and • The discharger shall immediately notify the Central Coast RWQCB staff of any discharge to surface waters or surface water drainages. The discharge shall not have chlorine or bromine concentrations that could impact groundwater quality. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of the General Waiver would ensure that discharges associated with well drilling, development, and trenchless pipeline installation are conducted in a manner consistent with the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 4.11.3. Adherence to the conditions of the General Waiver would prevent significant adverse effects on water quality from discharges of water produced during construction of the recharge and monitoring wells, and all pipeline segments constructed utilizing trenchless construction methods. Further, because the effluent produced during well construction and trenchless segments for pipeline installation would not meet the requirements for discharge under the General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001), as described for “Construction Excavation Dewatering Activities”, above, collection of the effluent from well development and trenchless pipeline installation and treatment to remove contaminants prior to discharge is a non-discretionary requirement of the General Waiver. General Waiver regulatory requirements are mandatory and, therefore, discharge may not occur unless the District or its contractor has obtained coverage under the General WDRs, including application of the General Waiver conditions for protection of water quality (described above). If it is not feasible to treat the effluent sufficiently for discharge under the General Waiver, the District or its contractor would be required to dispose of the collected effluent off-site at an authorized disposal facility. The impact would be less than significant. Pipeline Disinfection Discharges (Purified Water Pipeline) Construction of the Purified Water Pipeline would include disinfection and flushing prior to operation (Table 3-8). The effluent generated from disinfection and flushing would be dechlorinated and discharged to the local storm drainage system (see Section 3.6.6). As described in Section 4.11.2, storm drain systems in the Project area generally discharge untreated stormwater directly to Monterey Bay. Without proper controls, these discharges could adversely affect water quality in downstream receiving water bodies by increasing turbidity (if discharged directly without appropriate treatment) or due to high chlorine/chloramine (the primary disinfectant used for drinking water) concentrations. All discharges associated with disinfection and flushing would be subject to waste discharge requirements under the Statewide NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Permit No. CAG140001). Requirements of this general permit implement the Ocean Plan water quality objectives and are applicable to those discharges directly into the Ocean or indirectly via a stormwater system that drains into the Ocean. Under this general permit, the Applicant or its contractor would be required to implement BMPs proven to be effective for the treatment or control of pollutants associated with pipeline disinfection discharges to ensure proper management, and routing of discharges to control the pollutants of Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-47 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water concern and protect beneficial uses of the receiving waters. At a minimum, BMPs for planned discharges would be implemented to achieve the following performance standards: • Prevent aquatic toxicity by using dechlorination chemical additions, implementing equivalent proven dechlorination methods, and/or assuring that the chlorine in the discharge dissipates naturally; such that the level of chlorine in the discharge is less than 0.019 mg/L prior to entering a receiving water. • Prevent riparian erosion and hydromodification by implementing flow dissipation, erosion control, and hydromodification-prevention measures. • Minimize sediment discharge, turbidity and color impacts by implementing sediment, turbidity, erosion and color control measures. Compliance with the requirements of Statewide General Permit No. CAG140001 and the conditions therein would protect water quality and beneficial uses for receiving water bodies. Additionally, discharges under the general permit require TMDL-related sampling of discharges from drinking water systems identified in a TMDL (see Section 4.11.2 for discussion of TMDLs applicable to the Project area). If the CCRWQCB determines that any TMDLs establish requirements that should be implemented through TMDL-specific permit requirements for the discharges authorized under Permit No. CAG140001, the CCRWQCB may issue specific permit(s) for those discharges, with coverage under this general permit subsequently terminated. Alternatively, if further TMDLs are adopted that address pollutants that are likely to be in discharges from drinking water systems and allocate waste loads specifically to water purveyors regulated under this general permit, the State Water Board may add additional TMDL-specific permit requirements to the general permit in a subsequent permit amendment or renewal. Mandatory compliance with the requirements of Statewide General Permit No. CAG140001 would ensure that discharges associated with pipeline disinfection are conducted in a manner consistent with the governing regulatory requirements, plans, and policies described in Section 4.11.3. Compliance with the general permit would ensure that disinfection discharges do not exceed water quality standards or otherwise degrade water quality or deleteriously affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Further, because compliance with the requirements of the Statewide NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges are mandatory, discharges would not occur unless the District or its contractor has obtained coverage under Statewide General Permit No. CAG140001 prior to implementing pipeline disinfection activities. Therefore, impacts relating to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or creating additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrading water quality from disinfection discharges during construction of Project pipelines would be less than significant. Surface Water Crossings for Pipeline Construction As described in Section 3.6.4 and summarized in Table 3-3, the majority of pipeline alignments would be constructed within paved public rights-of-way, and therefore would not require construction activities within drainages or surface water features. Where pipeline segments cross surface water features, such as the San Lorenzo River, Arana Creek, and Soquel Creek, pipelines would either be installed on existing bridges or using trenchless construction techniques (see Table 3-7). One exception would be culvert crossing on Soquel Avenue between Frontage Road Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-48 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water and Kraft’s Body Shop; at this location an open cut installation would be required, as discussed in Section 3.6.4. Each of these techniques for crossing surface water features is assessed for construction related impacts to water quality. Water Crossings at Bridges Where pipelines cross surface water features at locations where bridges are available, pipeline segments would be installed by hanging the pipeline on the bridge or placing it in the bridge’s annular space (see Section 3.6.4). As described under General Construction Activities, above, adherence to the requirements of the CGP would ensure that construction by-products and pollutants, such as demolition debris, construction chemicals, fresh cement, saw water, drilling lubricant or other deleterious materials, do not enter waterways directly or are not carried to receiving waters in stormwater runoff. Additionally, all Project-related construction, including that occurring on bridges, would be subject to the BMPs defined as part of the SWPPP in that the Project exceeds one acre. Mandatory compliance with the CGP would prevent significant construction-related impacts on water quality, including those related to the direct release of pollutants, associated with pipeline installation on bridges. Therefore, impacts relating to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or creating additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrading water quality from construction activities related to water crossings at bridges would be less than significant. Open-Trench Water Crossing Installing a pipeline segment at the culvert crossing on Soquel Avenue between Frontage Road and Kraft’s Body Shop would involve excavating and temporarily removing the culvert, cutting a trench across the culverted section, installing the pipeline segment, replacing the culvert at the pre-construction depth and location, and restoring the site to pre-construction conditions. Construction at this site could increase erosion or sedimentation on-site or in the drainage downstream if loose soils are exposed to stormwater runoff or surface water flow or if the culvert is not appropriately stabilized following completion of the work. If not stabilized, the culvert may be subject to erosion and scour during high storm flows during winter months. The work would occur during the summer or late fall when stream flows are at a seasonal low or absent. If required, conventional construction techniques would be used to temporarily isolate the excavation work area and divert and bypass the stream flow until the section of pipeline crossing is completed and flow can be returned to the drainage. Further, as described under General Construction Activities, above, mandatory compliance with the CGP would prevent significant construction-related impacts on water quality, including those related to the direct release of sediment or as a result of erosion. Following pipeline installation, the culvert would be stabilized and the ground surface would be compacted and restored to pre-construction conditions. Therefore, impacts relating to the violation of water quality standards, waste discharge requirements, and/or creating additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise degrading water quality from construction activities related to surface water crossings of pipelines would be less than significant. HDD Pipeline Installation at Water Crossings Pipeline segments proposed beneath drainages, surface waters, and culverts or through sensitive habitat areas would be installed using horizontal directional drilling (HDD) (see Section 3.6.4). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-49 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water HDD is a trenchless technology where a drill bit fitted with a transmitter is guided from the drilling machine. HDD requires the excavation of a pit on either end of the pipe alignment, following which a surface-launched drilling rig is used to drill a small horizontal boring at the desired depth between the two pits. The boring is filled with drilling fluid and enlarged by a back reamer or hole opener to the required diameter. Drilling fluids (or drilling muds) are used to lubricate, loosen and carry the drilled soil from the hole. HDD fluids would vary depending on soil conditions around the trenchless installation, but typically, drilling fluids would consist of bentonite clay and a polymer. The pipeline is then pulled into position through the boring. The intent of utilizing HDD pipeline installation is to stay far enough below the bottom of surface water features to avoid having the drilling fluids find a fissure in the soil, which would create a connection to the river above, resulting in a leak of drilling fluids, such as Bentonite clay, into surface waters. If such a leak of drilling fluids occurs, the drilling fluids leaking into a surface water feature could directly impact water quality, such as by increasing turbidity, and indirectly impact species dependent upon the resource, such as through impacting aquatic wildlife respiration or degrading local habitat (see Section 4.4, Biological Resources). The development and implementation of HDD Pipeline Leak Contingency Measures, as set forth in Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 below, which would include leak prevention, containment, and clean-up requirements in the event of a leak of HDD drilling fluids would reduce this impact to less than significant. 16 Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: HDD Pipeline Leak Contingency Measures for Surface Water Crossings. The District shall implement the measures defined below to minimize and/or avoid water quality impacts associated with HDD pipeline installation. The measures shall be implemented at all areas where HDD installation under a waterway would occur to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for Project impacts to water quality and/or biological resources. Once final pipeline alignments are identified for the Project and the Project design is finalized, the District and/or its contractor shall further develop and implement the following minimization and avoidance measures as appropriate based on site-specific constraints and scale of work (e.g., the final siting and sizing of a containment area). The measures shall include, at a minimum: • Training of construction personnel about a) staff coordination and contact list of key Project proponents, biological monitor, and agency staff in the event of an accidental release during HDD pipeline installation b) monitoring procedures, equipment, materials and procedures in place for the prevention, containment, clean-up (such as 16 As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to inform and support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the selected pipeline alignments, including any waterway crossings, would be known and the design and selection of implementation method could progress to a more advanced level. At that time, the District (or the District’s contractor) would prepare the HDD Pipeline Leak Contingency Measures for Surface Water Crossings, based upon the site- and design-specific information. As HDD Pipeline Leak Contingency Measures for Surface Water Crossings primarily concern site-specific implementation methodology, to prepare the Plan before the final Project siting and design has been determined would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-50 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water creating a containment area and using a pump, using a vacuum truck, etc.); and, c) disposal of released drilling fluids, and agency notification protocols. • Methods for preventing accidental release during HDD pipeline installation including: a) maintaining pressure in the borehole to avoid exceeding the strength of the overlying soil; b) maintaining the minimum drilling pressure necessary to maintain fluid circulation; and, c) continuous monitoring of slurry circulation volumes at the exit and entry pits to determine if slurry circulation has been lost. • In the event an accidental release during HDD pipeline installation occurs, the on-site monitor, in coordination with the contractor, shall: a) verify that a release has occurred and identify the location of the release; b) immediately stop all drilling operations; c) deploy clean-up measures to contain drilling fluids released into surface waters; d) contact the appropriate District representative to notify of drilling fluid release occurrence (District would have responsibility to notify permit agency); e) contact the Project biological monitor to identify and relocate species potentially in the area; and, f) implement and monitor clean-up operations to contain, clean-up, and dispose of the released drilling fluids. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.11-2: Project operation would not violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (Less than Significant) Project operation and facility siting for onshore facilities could result in changes to on-site water quality associated with stormwater runoff and, to a lesser degree, the potential future use of AWPF treated water for landscape irrigation purposes. Stormwater runoff carrying pollutants could be conveyed off site and impact the water quality and beneficial uses of receiving waters. Use of treated water for irrigation would be required to meet criteria defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. The potential for water quality impacts to occur from operation and facility siting is assessed for direct and indirect water quality impacts for onshore Project facilities. Offshore operational discharges of brine into Monterey Bay could impact water quality if contaminant concentrations in receiving waters exceed water quality standards, regulatory requirements, or otherwise a degrade receiving water quality as compared to baseline conditions. The potential for water quality impacts to occur due to operational discharges is assessed for direct and indirect water quality impacts within Monterey Bay. Impacts to marine biological resources resulting from water quality changes from Project operational discharges are assessed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. Operational Water Quality Impacts from Onshore Facility Siting The potential treatment facility locations (Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site, SC WWTF) would be located in areas that are currently developed and/or disturbed and are generally covered with impervious surfaces or compacted soils, are mostly flat, and are in urban Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-51 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water or developed areas served by existing stormwater collection and conveyance systems. Development and siting of the recharge and monitoring well facilities would result in the addition of small structures and concrete well pads (generally 10 feet by 10 feet square pad) as well as additional minor additions of impervious areas for associated structures (e.g., electrical panels). Such minor additions of impervious area from recharge and monitoring well facilities would not substantially increase runoff volumes or rates as compared to existing conditions or result in the introduction of pollutants that could be transported in stormwater. The conveyance pipeline components of the Project would be located underground, or would span existing bridges generally within the ROW of identified roadway alignments within the Project area. Once constructed, the surface along the pipeline alignments would be restored to pre-construction conditions. Development of the SC WWTF, depending on final Project design, would not substantially increase impervious surface area as compared to existing conditions (i.e., developed site). The Headquarters-West Annex Site is mostly developed with impervious surfaces, although the Annex side is currently undeveloped and consists of a cleared parcel with pervious soils. The Chanticleer Site is currently undeveloped and characterized as having bare compacted soil and is currently used for construction staging and other similar uses. Overall, the proposed facility sites are located within current industrial facility sites (e.g., the SC WWTF site) or broadly developed areas and the nature and character of stormwater would not be substantially altered by Project operation; stormwater would be typical of urban stormwater quality during Project operation, similar to baseline conditions. The Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site or SC WWTF would be designed, as required by regulatory requirements, with modern on-site stormwater drainage collection and conveyance systems as well as stormwater management BMPs pursuant to applicable regulatory requirements, including compliance with the City’s MS4 permit (described in detail in Section 4.11.3). In accordance with the NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for MS4s, the Project would be required to implement post-construction stormwater BMPs. Specifically, the Headquarters-West Annex Site, Chanticleer Site or SC WWTF would be required to incorporate LID design measures intended to mimic the pre-Project site hydrology and protect water quality. Peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and sediment loading would be required to not exceed the estimated pre-development rate and the use of stormwater quality treatment BMPs would be required to be incorporated to mitigate stormwater runoff based on the 85th percentile 24-hour runoff event. These post-construction stormwater management requirements are standard practice and have been proven effective regionally for areas covered under MS4 Permits at preventing increases in stormwater volume and runoff rates, as well as pollutant loads transported by stormwater, both on and off site. Development of the treatment facilities would require implementation of additional water quality BMP requirements relating to repair/maintenance bays, vehicle/equipment wash areas, chemical/material/waste storage, leak and spill cleanup, pavement cleaning, employee training. Further, depending on final site design, if the total Project impervious surface area exceeds 22,500 square feet the site design must incorporate LID designs such that runoff from the 95th percentile 24-hour rainfall event is infiltrated on site, including peak flow management for 2-year and 10-year storm events. All LID design features and post-construction BMPs would be Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-52 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water detailed in a “Stormwater and LID Assessment” checklist that would be submitted for review and approval with any Grading Permit application. Mandatory compliance with post-construction MS4 Permit requirements would ensure the Project is developed in a manner consistent with regulations, plans, and policies described in Section 4.11.3. Compliance with the post-construction stormwater requirements under the MS4 permit, as well as the requirements for post-construction stormwater runoff management associated with the City of Santa Cruz, City of Capitola, and County of Santa Cruz LCP policies (which would be implemented through issuance of a CDP), would ensure that siting and operation of any above ground facilities would not substantially increase the existing amount or rate of runoff as compared to existing conditions and that stormwater generated on site does not contain substantially increased levels of pollutants, as compared to baseline conditions, that impair or degrade the beneficial uses of receiving water bodies. No long-term changes in drainage patterns would result from implementation of the proposed pipelines as all surface areas associated with pipeline installation would be restored to pre-construction condition following pipeline installation and, as such, operation of the pipelines would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Operational Water Quality Impacts from Use of Treated Water for Irrigation The project includes turnouts on the proposed treated water pipelines to allow for use of AWPF treated water for landscape irrigation purposes. However, the direct use of treated water for landscape irrigation is not currently proposed and no customers are currently identified. Use of treated water for landscape irrigation requires that the criteria defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations are met, such as the removal of suspended and dissolved solids, bacteria, viruses, organic materials, and other constituents, resulting in treated water that meets and/or exceeds the regulatory requirements of the California Department of Public Health standards for disinfected tertiary recycled water. As described in detail in Sections 3.5.1, Source Water and Treatment, and 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater, the District would utilize advanced purification technology, including microfiltration/ultrafiltration (MF), reverse osmosis (RO), and ultraviolet light-based advanced oxidation process (UV AOP) disinfection, to treat the source water to Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) standards, which would allow for groundwater replenishment via recharge wells. The treatment requirements for IPR projects involving groundwater replenishment are set forth in Title 22, Article 5.2, Groundwater Replenishment – Subsurface Application, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) (see Section 4.10.3, Regulatory Framework, for details). Treatment of the source water to meet the requirements for IPR under Title 22 would exceed recycled water requirements for surface landscape irrigation application (see Section 3.5.1 for additional details). Further, SWRCB General Order “Water Reclamation Requirements for Recycled Water Use” (General Order) (which replaces the prior SWRCB Order No. 2014-0090-DWQ, General Discharge Requirements for Recycled Water Use), specifies requirements for all uses of recycled Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-53 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water water 17 and/or treated municipal wastewater for non-potable uses can be permitted, such as landscape irrigation, crop irrigation, dust control, industrial/commercial cooling, decorative fountains authorized by Title 22. The order acknowledges that the use of recycled water for irrigation purposes has the potential to increase nutrients in surface and groundwater. To address this, the order requires that recycled water used for irrigation purposes is applied at agronomic rates 18 and prohibits the application of recycled water when soils are saturated. Other prohibitions require that recycled water is not allowed to escape from the area of application as surface water flow. In addition, runoff or spray may not enter a dwelling or food handling facility, and may not contact any drinking water fountain. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would ensure that public health and surface and groundwater quality are protected and that use of treated water for landscape irrigation, should any irrigation customers be identified in the future, would not violate water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements. Impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Water Quality Impacts from Operational Discharges into Monterey Bay The Project would not include any mechanism or process that would increase the temperature of the proposed operational discharges to Monterey Bay relative to existing discharges from the SC WWTF. Therefore, the Project would not substantially increase the temperature of the discharged effluent, and thermal impacts on receiving waters are not discussed further. Implementation of the Project would achieve the Project Objective of providing environmental benefits, such as to surface and marine waters, by reducing the volume of treated effluent discharged to Monterey Bay under existing conditions as well as reduce SC WWTF discharges overall. The advanced water purification system would operate at an overall water recovery rate of approximately 72 percent. The treatment system would produce up to 1.3 mgd of potable water, requiring an RO feed supply of 1.80 mgd. Based on the RO recovery rate, the treatment process would produce approximately 0.56 mgd of waste residuals (0.26 mgd of MF waste and 0.3 mgd of brine). Brine from the treatment system would be piped back to the SC WWTF to a proposed brine and effluent receiving, mixing, and monitoring facility where it would be blended with treated effluent for disposal via the existing ocean outfall. The MF waste along with all other waste streams except for brine would be sent to SC WWTF via the existing sewer. As described in Section 4.11.2, the SC WWTF has an average dry weather design capacity of 17 mgd and was designed to treat up to 81 mgd during peak hour wet weather. The 2014 SC WWTF average daily flow rate was approximately 8.1 mgd with a peak wet weather flow of about 65.0 mgd; the addition of the waste stream from the AWPF would not exceed that capacity of the SC WWTF or outfall during dry or wet weather. The Project would reduce the overall volume of treated effluent discharged into Monterey Bay via the SC WWTF outfall and would reduce the monthly average discharge of secondary effluent (see Table 4.11-2) by approximately 1.3 mgd. Additionally, the overall loading of chemicals and minerals being discharged into Monterey Bay would not be increased as compared to the existing 17 The California Water Code, Section 26 defines recycled water as “water which, as a result of treatment of municipal wastewater, is suitable for a direct beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur and is therefore considered a valuable resource.” 18 The term “agronomic rate” refers to a specific rate of irrigation that ensures that no excess water or nutrient would percolate beyond the root zone. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-54 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water discharge. However, beneficially re-using a portion of the secondary effluent would result in the concentrations of some constituents associated with the effluent discharged from the outfall to increase. Increased concentrations of water quality constituents, if high enough in operational discharges, could degrade water quality and adversely affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters in Monterey Bay and/or violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. To assess water quality impacts, the predicted concentrations of water quality constituents present in the operational discharges were analyzed and the constituent concentrations were assessed for compliance with relevant water quality standards, such as NPDES effluent limitations and Ocean Plan water quality objectives. When released from an outfall, operational discharges such as those proposed undergo rapid mixing and dilution with ocean water. Multiport diffusers require a relatively limited area to enable rapid turbulent mixing that disperses and dilutes brine as each diffuser port facilitates rapid dilution by entraining seawater into the plume being discharged under pressure. The mixing of the discharge with receiving ocean waters is affected by the buoyancy and momentum of the discharge plume, a process referred to as initial dilution. Compliance with the Ocean Plan water quality objectives, summarized in Table 4.11-3, is required after the initial dilution of the discharge into the ocean is completed. The initial dilution occurs in an area known as the “zone of initial dilution” (ZID). The ZID is defined as the zone where buoyancy- and momentum-driven mixing produces rapid dilution of the discharge. As prescribed in the Ocean Plan, the discharge must meet the water quality objectives at the outer boundary of the ZID. Discharge limitations for the NPDES permit (i.e., the permitted in-pipe concentration of water quality constituents) are obtained by quantifying the degree of dilution that occurs within the ZID, referred to as the minimum probable initial dilution (Dm). The water quality objectives established in the Ocean Plan are adjusted by the Project-specific Dm to derive the NPDES permit limits on in-pipe constituent concentrations for a wastewater discharge prior to ocean dilution. As described in Section 4.11.3, the diffuser provides a minimum initial dilution of 139:1 (parts seawater to effluent) so that effluent leaving the diffuser system effectively mixes with ocean water. Waterquality–based effluent limitations established in the NPDES permit are based on this ratio. Carollo (2017) compiled SC WWTF NPDES water quality monitoring data related to the existing secondary effluent to assess potential changes to water quality constituent concentrations in operational discharges resulting from the addition of brine. Any changes to constituent concentrations in the combined effluent were assessed against compliance with SC WWTF NPDES effluent limitations defined in the current permit (Order No. R3-2017-0030, NPDES No. CA0048194). Water quality monitoring data were obtained from the 2014 SC WWTF Annual Self-Monitoring Report (SMR) in accordance with its NPDES Permit Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP). The assessment determined the in-pipe concentration of water quality constituents for the combined SC WWTF secondary effluent and the brine from the Project prior to discharge and compared these concentrations to SC WWTF NPDES effluent limitations to identify potential exceedances. Table 4.11-5 shows a prediction of the combined effluent water quality for constituents identified as having increased concentrations as compared to the SC WWTF's monthly average effluent limitations. Note, these estimated concentrations represent in-pipe constituent concentrations (i.e., prior to discharge and dilution at the outfall). The concentrations would be substantially reduced following discharge from the diffuser and rapid dilution with Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-55 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water TABLE 4.11-5 PREDICTED OPERATIONAL DISCHARGE EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY VS. NPDES PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Water Quality Constituent Units SC WWTF Monthly Average NPDES Effluent Limitation Arsenic, Total µg/L - 1.2 1.4 Cadmium µg/L 140 0.1 0.1 Chromium (Total) µg/L 280 0.63 0.8 Copper, Total µg/L - 6.3 7.5 Lead, Total µg/L 280 ND ND Mercury, Total µg/L 5 ND ND Nickel, Total µg/L - 3.25 3.9 Selenium, Total µg/L 2,100 0.65 0.8 Silver, Total µg/L 98 0.1 0.1 Zinc, Total µg/L - 40.5 48.4 Cyanide, Total (as CN) µg/L 140 2.0 2.4 Ammonia (as N) µg/L - 29 34.6 Phenolic Compounds (non-chlorinated) µg/L 4,200 141.7 169.2 Chlorinated Phenolics µg/L 140 47.7 57.0 Endosulfan µg/L 1.3 ND ND Endrin µg/L 0.28 ND ND TDSa mg/L - 1280 1530 TKN mg/L as N - 27 32 TSS mg/L 30 7.4 8.8 TOC Mg/L 17 14.3 17.1 Oil and Grease mg/L 25 <5 <5 Existing Effluent Predicted Combined Effluent NOTES: a TDS calculated using a TDS/Electrical Conductivity ratio of 0.65. ND = Non Detect A prediction could not be made for Total Chlorine Residuals and toxicity (acute and chronic). Testing is required to be performed for these parameters as part of the NPDES permit process and Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing would be conducted as part of the permit process to assess the potential for acute and/or chronic toxicity of proposed discharges, as described in detail below. SOURCE: Carollo, 2017 ambient seawater. As described in Section 4.11.2, Environmental Setting, under Treated Wastewater Effluent Characteristics and Quality, the calculated minimum dilution of 139:1 is achieved by the outfall diffuser (discussed in more detail below). The assessment of operational discharge water quality determined that, in general, the Project would not exceed NPDES effluent limitations defined in the current permit (Order No. R3-20170030) or Ocean Plan water quality objectives and would not degrade water quality relative to baseline conditions. The only parameter that was identified as potentially exceeding the permit Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-56 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water effluent limitation (Table 4.11-5) is Total Organic Carbon (TOC). Due to identifying a potential exceedance for TOC, this constituent was assessed further to characterize the potential for water quality to be impacted in Monterey Bay. As described above, while in-pipe constituent concentrations may increase due to reduced volume of effluent discharged to Monterey Bay, the overall mass (or loading 19) of constituents discharged would not increase with implementation of the Project (i.e., overall total annual loading to Monterey Bay would remain the same as under current operation without the AWPF). The current NPDES permit has an effluent concentration limit of 17 mg/L. Under the Project, a potential concentration of 17.1 mg/L in the proposed discharge was calculated. The potential exceedance of TOC is based on a worst-case water quality assessment using the monthly effluent flows from Table 4.11-2 as well as an assumed performance of the AWPF (Carollo, 2017). Additionally, the combined effluent constituent concentrations were based on the lowest SC WWTF effluent flows of 6.4 mgd occurring in August (most conservative scenario). Under typical operations, the brine would be combined with higher effluent flows (average annual flow of 8.1 mgd and higher during winter months) and constituent concentrations, including TOC, would accordingly be reduced as the brine is further diluted by the existing secondary effluent. Additionally, should it be required, TOC concentrations could feasibly be reduced to conform to effluent limitations through equalization of the brine. Online TOC meters could be placed to monitor both the brine (in an equalization basin) and the SC WWTF discharge. Brine could be managed such that it only be sent to the outfall if the limit would not be exceeded. Therefore, based on the proposed components, Project operation and design would meet water quality objectives prescribed under the Ocean Plan through adherence to the SC WWTF NPDES effluent limitations. Additionally, as described in Section 4.11.3, Regulatory Framework, under NPDES Waste Discharge Requirements, regulations require that operational discharges from the Project be incorporated into an amended NPDES Permit for the SC WWTF. The amended NPDES Permit would be updated to reflect the physical and chemical changes in the commingled effluent plume created by combining the SC WWTF secondary effluent with the Project brine. Under the amended NPDES permit, operational discharges would be subject to the permit requirements prescribed by the CCRWQCB as part of the permit amendment process. Such requirements would be designed to ensure that operation of the Project would not violate waste discharge requirements defined in the amended NPDES permit, which incorporate the Ocean Plan and Basin Plan water quality objectives, upon discharge via the outfall diffuser. Also, the MBNMS implements the Water Quality Protection Program to enhance and protect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the sanctuary through its Memorandum of Agreement with the State of California, USEPA, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (see Section 4.11.3). The Memorandum of Agreement specifies that, prior to issuance of any permits or licenses, a review and authorization process by MBNMS is required to ensure such permits and licenses are protective of MBNMS resources and are consistent with relevant plans, policies, and guidelines. 19 Loading is typically measured in pounds per day. Since the AWPF treatment process would not add water quality constituents to wastewater but would just remove freshwater via reverse osmosis, there would be no additional pollutant loads entering the Bay through SC WWTF discharge that do not exist in current secondary effluent. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-57 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Prior to implementing operational discharges, the amendment process for the NPDES Permit would require a water quality assessment that thoroughly characterizes the discharge (and is signed and certified by a registered civil engineer), which would involve the City of Santa Cruz (as the discharger defined in the current SC WWTF NPDES Permit) and/or the District (as a contributor of a new discharge) to perform testing and monitoring of the water quality of the discharges as part of a waste disposal study to demonstrate compliance with NPDES effluent limitations / Ocean Plan water quality objectives and minimum initial dilution requirements. A complete characterization of proposed discharge includes, but is not limited to, design and actual flows, a list of constituents and the discharge concentration of each constituent, a list of other appropriate waste discharge characteristics, a description and schematic drawing of all treatment processes, a description of any Best Management Practices (BMPs) used, and a description of disposal methods. Such an assessment would be conducted in accordance with protocols approved by the RWQCB. Additionally, as part of the NPDES amendment or update, Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) testing would be required for the facility point of discharge, representing an integrated approach for assessing the potential for acute and/or chronic toxicity of proposed discharges. The primary objective of WET testing is to ensure that effluent released from industrial and municipal facilities into the nation’s waters does not cause unacceptable levels of toxicity to aquatic life. As described above, the point of compliance for water quality standards relating to operational discharges is the edge of the ZID. Such an approach for water quality standards acknowledges the concept of a regulatory mixing zone where water quality constituent concentrations contained in discharges undergo rapid and substantial reduction via dilution. Within the mixing zone, water quality criteria may be exceeded as long as toxic conditions are prevented (USEPA, 1991). To determine whether an effluent has the potential to be toxic, WET tests are performed on various aquatic test species. WET testing is a standardized measure of the aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly by a toxicity test and is used to evaluate biological impacts of discharges for NPDES permitting. The use of biological testing provides a means to evaluate the impact of chemical and physical mixtures at the site of discharge and will consider benthic species and/or species most relevant to the site. By nature and definition, toxicity cannot be measured analytically, as is done for assessing the in-pipe concentrations of constituents regulated under the Ocean Plan with numeric WQOs. Chemical analyses are practical only when all potential constituents present in an effluent are known. WET testing assesses the combined toxic effects of all constituents of an effluent, known or unknown. At a minimum, WET testing performed as part of the NPDES amendment process would include quarterly testing for a 12-month period using multiple species, or the results from four tests performed at least annually, provided the results show no appreciable toxicity, and testing for acute and/or chronic toxicity, depending on the receiving water dilution factor for the proposed outfall. Further, pursuant to Water Code sections 13267 and 13383, the SC WWTF would be required to comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements of the amended NPDES Permit. Implementation of an MRP ensures technical and monitoring data is provided to the CCRWQCB to determine the Discharger’s compliance with NPDES effluent limitations and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-58 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water other requirements to assess the need for further investigation or enforcement action, and to protect public health and safety and the environment. Reports submitted under the MRP would contain a description of any noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the noncompliance. All monitoring would be conducted according to 40 C.F.R. part 136, Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of Pollutants. If information submitted under the MRP establishes that operational discharges cause, or have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an excursion above an Ocean Plan water quality objective, the NPDES Permit could be re-opened for modification to ensure operational discharges conform to water quality standards. Discharges would not be allowed if they do not conform to the NPDES effluent limitations that are prescribed for the protection of receiving water quality and beneficial uses. Adherence to regulatory requirements including those for wastewater discharges associated with the County of Santa Cruz LCP policies (which would be implemented through issuance of a CDP), would ensure that operational discharges do not degrade the quality of receiving waters in Monterey Bay or impair designated beneficial uses. Given that the combined discharge would not exceed the dilution requirements of the NPDES permit and would not violate the SC WWTF’s NPDES effluent limits, the RWQCB Basin Plan WQOs for marine habitat, and the Ocean Plan WQOs for marine aquatic life, nor substantially increase the concentration of constituents in Monterey Bay receiving waters as compared to baseline conditions, the water quality impact associated with the discharge of brine would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.11-3: Project facilities would not alter drainage patterns such that there is a resultant increase in erosion, siltation, flooding or the rate or amount of surface runoff such that the capacity of an existing or planned stormwater drainage system is exceeded. (Less than Significant) Construction of the various Project components could disturb soil during grading and earthmoving operations and could alter stormwater drainage patterns causing on-site erosion and downstream siltation. During Project operations, stormwater runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas can increase considerably when drainage patterns are substantially altered, a site is paved, the impervious surface area is increased, and the ability of surface water to infiltrate the ground surface is reduced or eliminated. The alteration of drainage patterns can increase peak stormwater flows, causing erosion or siltation on site or downstream, increase flooding and flood risks, and exceed the capacity of stormwater collection and conveyance systems. Project Construction (Applies to all Project Components) Refer to Impact 4.11-1 for an assessment of water quality impacts, including erosion, siltation, and stormwater management, during Project construction. As described under Impact 4.11-1, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-59 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water facility construction would not substantially alter the existing on-site drainage patterns or the slope of areas where Project components are located. Additionally, as described in Impact 4.11-1, Project construction would adhere to the requirements of the CGP. The CGP requires that nonstormwater discharges from construction sites be eliminated or reduced to the maximum extent practicable; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that governs construction activities for the Project be developed and implemented; and, routine inspections be performed for all stormwater pollution prevention BMPs and control practices being used at the site, including inspections before and after storm events. These requirements are standard construction practice and have been proven effective at preventing erosion and/or siltation both on and off site during construction activities and are specifically designed to manage stormwater within construction zones. Impacts relating to erosion, siltation, or increased stormwater runoff on and off site due to altered drainage patterns resulting from construction activities would be less than significant. Project Operation (Applies to all Project Components) Refer to Impact 4.11-2, for an assessment of stormwater runoff and water quality related impacts, including erosion, siltation, and stormwater management, during operation of all onshore Project facilities and components. Operation of offshore components associated with the discharge of brine would not alter drainage patterns or influence runoff characteristics. As described in Section 4.11.2, the majority of the Project area is currently developed, and surface areas are generally impervious or are compacted earth with low permeability. Development of the SC WWTF would not substantially increase impervious surface area as compared to existing conditions (i.e., developed site). The Headquarters-West Annex Site is mostly developed with impervious surfaces, although the Annex side is currently undeveloped and consists of a cleared parcel with pervious soils. The Chanticleer Site is currently undeveloped and characterized as having bare compacted soil and is currently used for construction staging and other similar uses. Development and siting of the recharge and monitoring well facilities would result in the addition of small structures and concrete well pads (generally 10 feet by 10 feet square pad) as well as additional minor additions of impervious areas for associated structures (e.g., electrical panels). Overall, the proposed sites are located within broadly developed areas. As such, the pre-existing drainage patterns at the site for each onshore Project component would not be substantially altered in terms of slope and/or gradient as compared to existing conditions. The Project would be required to implement LID design features and BMPs for stormwater management under the MS4 permit program, discussed in detail under Impact 4.11-2. Compliance with post-construction MS4 permit stormwater requirements would ensure that onsite drainage patterns are not altered such that there is a substantial increase in the amount or rate of stormwater runoff from the proposed facility sites as compared to existing conditions. Under MS4 post-construction requirements, post-construction hydrology would not be substantially altered as compared to pre-Project conditions. As such, the rate and volume of stormwater runoff flowing off site for the various facilities would not be increased to a degree that erosion, siltation, or flooding occurs or that stormwater conveyance system capacity is exceeded. The proposed conveyance pipelines would be installed underground, or would span existing bridges and operation of these components would not alter drainage patterns or cause erosion, siltation or Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-60 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water flooding. With mandatory compliance with the post-construction stormwater requirements, proposed alterations in drainage patterns would not result in substantial increases in erosion, siltation, flooding or the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that could exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater systems. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.11-4: Project facilities would not be located within a 100-year flood hazard area and impede or redirect flood flows or could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee, or coastal flooding due to tsunami or sea-level rise. (Less than Significant) 100-year Flood Hazard Areas and Levee Failure (SC WWTF Site and Pipelines) The Project facilities would not be located in a FEMA-designated 100-year flood hazard zone (1 percent annual flood risk). As discussed in Section 4.11.2, the SC WWTF is located on land adjacent to the Neary Lagoon outlet channel in a section of downtown Santa Cruz, which is within a flood hazard A99 zone. An A99 flood hazard zone is an area protected from a 100-year flood by a federal flood protection system for which no base flood elevations have been determined. Under the A99 Zone designation, new buildings and improvements are not required to meet FEMA flood construction requirements and flood insurance premiums are significantly reduced to reflect the reduced flood risk in this area. While the City has improved the flood capacity of the San Lorenzo River levees over the past twenty years to reduce flood risk in the downtown area, floods may still occur. If AWPF facilities are located at SC WWTF, they would be located in areas that are already developed within the SC WWTF site with existing flood mitigation. The topography of the SC WWTF is such that the site would only be at risk from flooding due to flows from Neary Lagoon. However, an existing 10 to15 foot high concrete wall serves as a flood barrier between Neary Lagoon and the SC WWTF site. A gate in the wall can be fitted with duck boards that drop in in the event of a heavy rain event. Any precipitation that falls on the SC WWTF site is collected into the headworks, treated through the plant, and discharged through the ocean outfall. The plant has backup generators and the outfall pump station is run on engine motors so that the site can still operate in the event of power failures. Nevertheless, the site could experience minor damage if flooding were to occur. If flood damage were to occur, Project facilities at the SC WWTF may be taken off line temporarily and returned to service following repairs. The potential short-term interruption in Project-related operations at the SC WWTF is considered a less-than-significant impact because, while a short-term outage may temporarily halt generation of recharge water and slow the basin recharge process, it would not result in a shortage or lessening of overall water supply via extraction at production wells. Any temporary interruption due to facilities being offline following flooding would serve to extend or affect the overall basin recovery to a minor degree, but not for a long-enough duration that Project objectives would not be achieved. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-61 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Further, the A99 Zone containing the SC WWTF site is an overflow area from the San Lorenzo River, not an area that conveys flood flows. Because the site is not in an area of flood conveyance and the new levees constructed on the San Lorenzo River will reduce flooding in this area, the construction of proposed facilities at the SC WWTF would not cause any change in flooding as shown on the FEMA flood maps in terms of impeding or redirecting flood flows. Staff located at the SC WWTF, which is an existing facility, would not be exposed to increased flood risk as a result of Project implementation. The conveyance pipelines cross flood zones associated with the San Lorenzo River, Arana Creek, Rodeo Gulch and Soquel Creek. However, the pipeline would either cross under or be constructed within the bridge structures over these surface water features. Therefore, the proposed conveyance pipelines would not place structures within flood-hazard areas in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows or otherwise expose people or structures to significant risks involving flooding. Impacts related to flooding hazards would be less than significant; the Project would not expose people or structures to significant increased risks involving flooding associated with 100-year flood hazard areas or areas subject to flooding as a result of levee failure. Tsunami (SC WWTF Site and Pipelines) Tsunami damage is typically confined to low-lying coastal areas. The near-shore margins of Monterey Bay and low-lying areas in the lower coastal reaches of surface water features are subject to flooding in the event of a tsunami (Figure 4.11-2). Of the Project facilities, the SC WWTF, an existing facility, is located within a tsunami inundation hazard zone. Facilities and staff located on the SC WWTF site would be subject to similar risk of tsunami as exists under baseline conditions and staff located on-site would be subject to the facility tsunami evacuation plan, which in turn would be informed of tsunami risk through regional or City early warning system alerts; the Project would not increase the risk associated with tsunami hazards for the SC WWTF site. Some segments of conveyance pipelines are also located within tsunami hazard areas. Conveyance pipelines would be located underground or would span existing bridges and would not be subject to structural failure caused by tsunami run-up and would not impede or redirect tsunami related flood flows. Therefore, impacts related to inundation by tsunami would be less than significant. Dam Inundation (SC WWTF Site and Pipelines) A portion of the Project area in the vicinity of the San Lorenzo River, including the SC WWTF site and some pipeline segments, are within the mapped dam inundation zone for Newell Creek Dam. Inundation zones are developed based on modeling that assumes a catastrophic failure of a dam. Catastrophic failure of the Newell Creek Dam would be unlikely but if it were to occur, the flood inundation could expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Dams in California are regulated under the California Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) and it is rare that a DSOD jurisdictional dam undergoes catastrophic failure. The DSOD oversees all aspects of siting, design, construction, operation, and monitoring. All dams are routinely inspected and evaluated for seismic and structural integrity by the (DSOD). When a dam is found to have a failure potential, the water level behind the dam is reduced to allow for partial collapse Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-62 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water without loss of water as required by DSOD. Thus, the probability of dam failure resulting in significant loss, injury, or death is low. Given the low risk of dam failure, the Project would not expose people or structures to increased risk due to failure of a dam. Therefore, impacts related to flooding due to dam failure would be less than significant. Coastal Flooding and Sea Level Rise Coastal flooding impacts may be short-term (from storm driven wave run up and storm tides) and long-term (from sea level rise and increased risk of flooding from storm tides). Short-term impacts from coastal flooding could occur during 100-year storm events and cause flooding as described for the 100-year flood hazard area, above. This impact assesses future flood risks due to sea level rise. As described in Section 4.11.2, Environmental Setting, rising sea levels will increase the potential for coastal flooding, and the issue of sea level rise is a critical component of land use planning and hazard analysis in coastal areas. Until the year 2050, most of the climate models predict a similar degree of sea level rise; however, after 2050, projections of sea level rise become less certain because of divergent modeling results and differences in various estimates of greenhouse gas emissions (California Climate Action Team, 2010). Based on coastal flood hazard mapping for the Project area, the SC WWTF site and some proposed pipeline segments would become more vulnerable to flooding associated with a 100-year flood event based on sea level rise estimates for year 2050 (Figure 4.11-3). This represents a substantially increased risk as compared to existing flood hazard conditions (Figure 4.11-2). However, as described under 100-year flood hazard areas, above, facilities located at the SC WWTF site and underground pipeline segments would not be located in the coastal zone and, as such, would not impede or redirect flood flows associated with coastal flooding and sea level rise in a manner that would cause impacts related to sediment transport, wave shoaling, wave breaking, and/or run-up processes. Additionally, the main flood risk to the SC WWTF site that may be exacerbated by sea level rise as compared to existing conditions is from overtopping of Neary Lagoon as a result of increased water levels on the San Lorenzo River during coastal storms (backwatering). As described above, the SC WWTF site is protected from overtopping of Neary Lagoon by an existing flood mitigation barrier wall. Therefore, impacts to the shoreline or surrounding areas related to sea level rise flooding, flood exposure risk, and potentially increased flood related hazards from the proposed SC WWTF or pipeline segments would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.11.5 References – Hydrology Resources – Surface Water California Climate Action Team, 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. December 2010. California Emergency Management Agency, California Geological Survey, University of Southern California, 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Quadrangles. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-63 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Carollo, 2017. Soquel Creek Water District Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study. November 2017. Central Coast Long-term Environmental Assessment Network (CCLEAN), 2011. 2000-2010 Regional Monitoring Program Overview. Lead Agency: City of Watsonville, 2011. CCLEAN, 2017. CCLEAN. Available at http://www.cclean.org/. Accessed on January 31, 2017. CCLEAN, 2014. Regional Monitoring Program, Annual Report 2012-2013. January 31, 2014. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), 2002. San Lorenzo River Total Maximum Daily Load For Sediment. State of California, September 2002. CCRWQCB, 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan). June 2011. City of Santa Cruz, 2008. Newell Creek Dam Inundation Map. Prepared by City of Santa Cruz Water Department, March 2008. City of Santa Cruz, 2011. General Plan 2030, Draft EIR. Hydrology, Storm Drainage, and Water Quality Section. September 2011. City of Santa Cruz, 2012. General Plan 2030. City of Santa Cruz, 2016. City of Santa Cruz 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared by City of Santa Cruz Water Department, August 2016. County of Santa Cruz, 2017a. Map of Santa Cruz County Watersheds. Available at http://scceh.com/Portals/6/Env_Health/water_resources/WatershedMap.pdf. Accessed on January 23, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2017b. Santa Cruz County Watersheds. Available at http://scceh.com/Home/ Programs/WaterResources/WatershedandStreamHabitatProtection/SantaCruzCounty Watersheds.aspx. Accessed on January 23, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2017c. ArcGIS - Santa Cruz County Public Water Systems. Available at https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/print.html. Accessed on January 23, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2015. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2015 -2020. Available at http://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/Planning/policy/2015%20LHMP%20 Public%20Review%20Draft.pdf. Accessed on January 31. ESA, 2017. CalAm Monterey Peninsula Water Supply Project Draft EIR/EIS. January 2017. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018. FEMA Region 9: Open Pacific Coast Study. Available at http://www.r9map.org/Pages/ProjectDetailsPage.aspx?choLoco= 27&choProj=245. Accessed on January 31. Flow Science Inc., 2014. MRWPCA Brine Discharge Diffuser Analysis, FSI 134302 Draft Technical Memorandum, August 29, 2014. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-64 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Kinnetic Laboratories, Incorporated (KLI), 1998. Historical Review of the Ocean Outfall Monitoring Program, pp. 40 plus five appendices. City of Watsonville, Watsonville, California, 1998. KLI, 1999. Historical Review of Ocean Outfall Monitoring Program and Effects of Discharge on Marine Environment, pp. 192 plus one appendix. City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California, 1999. Leonard, J., 1993. Biological Control and Alternative Options in the Restoration of Schwann Lake. Senior Thesis, U. C. Santa Cruz. June 21, 1993. Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), 2017. MBNMS Site Characterization, Physical Oceanography. Available at http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sitechar/phys2.html. Accessed on January 31, 2018. MBNMS, 2018. Water Quality Protection Plan Committee. Available at: http://montereybay.noaa.gov/resourcepro/comm.html. Accessed on January 31. MBNMS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, California Environmental Protection Agency, California State Water Resources Control Board, California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast and San Francisco Bay Regions, California Coastal Commission, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 2003. Memorandum of Agreement for the Purpose of Ecosystem-based Water Quality Management. National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 2018. Mean Sea Level Trend, 9413450 Monterey, California. Available at https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/ sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9413450#. Accessed on January 31. National Research Council (NRC), 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. Pacific Institute, California Climate Change Center, 2009. The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast, Final Paper, prepared by Matthew Heberger, Heather Cooley, Pablo Herrera, Peter H. Gleick, and Eli Moore, May 2009. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), 2008. Draft 2008 California 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report. Supporting Information, Regional Board 3 - Central Coast Region. Available at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb3/water_issues/ programs/tmdl/303d/appendix_f/02468.shtml. Accessed on January 31, 2018. SWRCB, 2016. Water Quality Control Plan – Ocean Waters of California. California Ocean Plan, 2015. Effective January 28, 2016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA505/2-90-001. Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. USEPA, 2012. Water Quality Assessment Report. Waterbody Report for Arana Gulch, Noble Gulch, Porter Gulch, Rodeo Gulch, San Lorenzo River, Schwann Lake, and Monterey Bay. USEPA, 2017. Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Pollutants (PBTs): Aldrin/Dieldrin. Available at: http://widit.knu.ac.kr/epa/ebtpages/Pollutants/ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-65 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Toxics/Toxic_Substances/Persistent_Bioaccumulative_Toxic_Pollutants_PBTs/siteout/ s6out3.htm. Accessed on January 31, 2018. URS, 2013. Proposed scwd2 Regional Seawater Desalination Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. SCH# 2010112038. Prepared for the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District, May 2013. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.11-66 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation 4.12 Land Use and Recreation 4.12.1 Introduction This section describes existing land uses and recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Project sites and evaluates the potential land use and recreational facilities impacts that could result from construction and operation of the Project. This addresses whether the Project would physically divide existing communities, conflict with existing land use policies, and degrade or otherwise require construction of recreational facilities. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Land Use expressed concerns related to siting of the AWPF near a residential area and inconsistencies with existing general plans. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. No comments relative to Recreation were received. Potential impacts on land uses associated with groundwater recharge operations are discussed in Section 4.10, Hydrology Resources – Groundwater. 4.12.2 Environmental Setting Santa Cruz County is located on the coast between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Monterey Peninsula. Santa Cruz is the second smallest county in California, encompassing a total area of 282,240 acres (441 square miles). The physical environment of Santa Cruz County is varied in character, containing such features as the forested Santa Cruz Mountains in the north and northeast, the mid-county coastal terraces (where a large portion of the county’s population is located), and the alluvial south county, which is predominately in agricultural use. The coastal communities of Aptos, Soquel, La Selva Beach, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, and Seacliff Beach are in eastern Santa Cruz County and border the Monterey Bay. Five major state highways connect Santa Cruz with adjacent counties. Highway 1 follows the coast from San Francisco south to the cities of Santa Cruz, Capitola, Watsonville, and Monterey. Highway 9 traverses the county from the city of Santa Cruz through the unincorporated communities of Felton, Ben Lomond, and Boulder Creek. Highway 17 traverses west-to-east from the city of Santa Cruz through the Santa Cruz Mountains to Santa Clara County. Highways 129 and 152 connect the city of Watsonville with neighboring Santa Clara County. Consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 and local Measure J (the growth management referendum of 1978), the County maintains a distinction between urban and rural areas through the use of a stable urban/rural boundary. Urban and rural areas are delineated by an Urban Services Line (USL) and a Rural Services Line (RSL). Urban development is concentrated within the four incorporated cities of Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz, Capitola, and Watsonville and the unincorporated areas of Live Oak, Soquel, Aptos, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation and Freedom, as defined by the USL. It is Santa Cruz County policy to direct a large share of growth into areas within the USL to facilitate the provision of services and preserve the character of the rural portion of the county. The Project, shown on Figure 4.12-1, would be located in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, and the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola. The Project area for the land use impact analysis includes the area within and surrounding the Project component sites. Land uses in the Project area are governed by local general plans, local coastal programs (LCPs), and zoning codes of the local jurisdictions, except on state and federal lands. In addition to the areas within the USL, there are also urban enclaves (located outside the USL) that may or may not have all urban services. These enclaves are defined by an RSL and include Davenport, Boulder Creek, Boulder Creek Country Club, Bear Creek Estates, Ben Lomond, Felton, Paradise Park, La Selva Beach, Place de Mer, Sand Dollar Beach, Canon del Sol, Sunset Beach, Pajaro Dunes North, and Pajaro. Existing Land Use Land uses in the Project area are predominantly urban, residential, and public. Some underground pipeline components of the Project would be within the coastal zone, as defined by the California Coastal Act (CCA) and thus would be subject to regulation pursuant to the CCA or applicable LCP. Figure 4.12-1 shows the extent of coastal zone in the Project area. Table 4.12-1 summarizes existing land uses, land use jurisdictions, and general plan land use designations and zoning classifications for the sites of the respective Project components. Recreational Resources There are a variety of recreational resources throughout Santa Cruz County, including the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, numerous state parks and beaches, county parks, and city and neighborhood parks and gardens. These resources provide a wide range of recreational opportunities from surfing and boating, to hiking and bird watching, to biking and skateboarding, among many others. Given the extent of the Project, mainly due to the potential pipeline options, a considerable number of parks and recreational facilities occur in the Project vicinity. Table 4.12-2 presents parks within 0.25 miles of Project components. As the table indicates, the majority of parks and open space areas occur in the vicinity of the pipeline alignments, with few in proximity to potential AWPF or recharge well sites. Bikeways are addressed in Section 4.15, Transportation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 Willowbrook Lane Headquarters-West Annex Site 17 Monterey Ave Chanticleer Site 9 Aptos* 1 Soquel* Cabrillo College North Path: U:\GIS\GIS\Projects\16xxxx\D160164_Soquel\03_MXDs_Projects\Resource_Section_Figures\Coastal_Zone_zoomed_out.mxd, rt 5/11/2018 Santa Cruz Capitola* 1 Twin Lakes Church Cabrillo College South Rio Del Mar* Santa Cruz WWTF 0 1 Opal Cliffs* Seascape* Miles La Selva Beach* Coastal Zone City Boundary Project Components Recharge Well (Options) Water Treatment Facility (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) *Community served by Soquel Creek Water District Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 SOURCE: SqCWD, 2017; Santa Cruz County, 2017 Figure 4.12-1 Coastal Zone within the Project Vicinity 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation TABLE 4.12-1 DESIGNATED LAND USES OF PROJECT SITES Project Site Jurisdiction Predominant Land Use Zoning Designation SC WWTF (pump station, tertiary, advanced water purification facility) City of Santa Cruz Community Facilities Public Facilities (P-F) Chanticleer Site (advanced water purification facility) Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Live Oak Planning Area Service Commercial (C-S), Community Commercial (C-C); Urban Residential, High Density (R-UH); Urban Residential, Medium Density Light Industrial (M-1) Project Components (R-UM); Public Facilities (P) Headquarters-West Annex (advanced water purification facility) Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Soquel Planning Area Urban Residential, Low Density (R-UL), Public Facilities (P) Single-Family Residential (R-1) Willowbrook Lane (recharge and monitoring wells) Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (O-R), Urban Residential, Medium Density (R-UM) Parks, Recreation and Open Space (PR) Monterey Avenue (recharge and monitoring wells) City of Capitola Single-Family Residential (R-SF), Parks and Open Space (P/OS) Public Facilities (PF-F) Cabrillo College(recharge and monitoring wells) Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Public Facilities (P), Urban Residential – Very Low Density (R-UVL) Public Facilities (PF) Twin Lakes Church (recharge and monitoring wells) Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Urban Open Space (O-U), Public Facility (P) Public Facilities (PF) Pipelines Unincorporated Santa Cruz County, Soquel Planning Area, City of Capitola, City of Santa Cruz Public Facilities (P); Urban Residential, Medium Density (R-UM); Parks and Open Space (P/OS); Single-Family Residential (R-SF) Public Facilities (PF), Single-Family Residential (R-SF), Light Industrial (M-1) SOURCES: Santa Cruz County, Geographic Information Services, 2018. Available at http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/PublicGISWeb/; City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development, City of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Plan, 2012; City of Capitola Community Development, Capitola General Plan, 2014. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation TABLE 4.12-2 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF PROJECT COMPONENTS Proposed Facility Public Recreational Areas Within 0.25 Mile SC WWTF (pump station, tertiary, advanced water purification facility) Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge, Depot Park Chanticleer Site (advanced water purification facility) -Headquarters-West Annex (advanced water purification facility) Soquel Lions Park Willowbrook Lane (recharge and monitoring wells) Willowbrook Park Monterey Ave (recharge and monitoring wells) Monterey Park, Cortez Park Cabrillo College (recharge and monitoring wells) Cabrillo College Campus Athletic Facilities (e.g., ballfields, track, tennis courts) Twin Lakes Church (recharge and monitoring wells) Cabrillo College Campus Athletic Facilities (e.g., ballfields, track, tennis courts), New Brighton State Beach Pipeline Segment from SCWWTF north to Broadway-Campbell Street Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge, Mike Fox Park. Depot Park, Riverside Gardens Park, Laurel Park, San Lorenzo Park, La Barranca Park Pipeline Segment from SCWWTF south to Broadway-Campbell Street Carmelita Cottages Park, Beach Flats Park, Mike Fox Park, Jesse Street Marsh, San Lorenzo Park, Poet's Park, Riverside Gardens Park, Dutra Overlook Park, Neary Lagoon Wildlife Refuge, Depot Park, La Barranca Park Pipeline Segment from Broadway-Campbell Street to Soquel Avenue-Capitola Road Mike Fox Park, Jesse Street Marsh, Star of the Sea Park, San Lorenzo Park, Central Park, Eastside Park, Arana Gulch, Riverside Gardens Park Pipeline Segment from Soquel Avenue-Capitola Road to Gross Road-41st Avenue Peery Park, Arana Gulch, Coffee Lane Park Pipeline Segment from Soquel Avenue-Capitola Road to Capitola Road-7th Avenue Arana Gulch, Jose Avenue Park Pipeline Segment from Capitola Road-7th Avenue south to Capitola Road-49th Avenue Arana Gulch, Brommer Park, Hestwood Park, Jose Avenue Park, Chanticleer Park, Jade Street Park, Soquel Creek Park Pipeline Segment from Capitola Road-7th Avenue to Jade Street Park, Frederick Street Park, Arana Gulch, Twin Capitola Road-49th Avenue [south via Rail Road Lakes Park, Simpkins Swim Center, Brommer Park, Twin Lakes ROW] State Beach, Felt Street Park, Soquel Creek Park, Peery Park, Jose Avenue Park, Twin Lakes State Beach Pipeline Segment from Capitola Road-49th Avenue to Clares Street-Wharf Road Soquel Creek Park Pipeline Segment from Clares Street-Wharf Road to Gross Road-41st Avenue Peery Park Pipeline Segment from Clares Street-Wharf Road to Auto Plaza Drive-Wharf Road Peery Park Pipeline Segment from Auto Plaza Drive-41st Avenue to Auto Plaza Drive-Wharf Road Peery Park Pipeline Segment from Auto Plaza Drive-Wharf Road to Soquel-Wharf Road-Porter Street Peery Park, Soquel Lions Park Pipeline Segment from Soquel-Wharf Road-Porter Street to Soquel Drive-E. Walnut Street Soquel Lions Park, Anna Jean Cummings Park Pipeline Segment from Soquel-Wharf Road-Porter Street to Soquel Drive-E. Walnut Street Soquel Lions Park Pipeline Segment from Headquarters – West Annex Site to Recharge Well Sites [via Rosedale Avenue, Kennedy Drive, Monterey Avenue, Park Avenue, Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College Drive Monterey Avenue Park, Cortez Park, Soquel Lions Park, Willowbrook Park, Richard Vessey Park, New Brighton State Beach, Noble Gulch Park SOURCE: Santa Cruz County, Geographic Information Services, 2018. Available at http://gis.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/PublicGISWeb/. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation 4.12.3 Regulatory Framework This section provides an overview of applicable federal, state, and local environmental laws, policies, plans, regulations, and/or guidelines (hereafter referred to generally as “regulatory requirements”) relevant to land use and recreational resources. A brief summary of each is provided. Discussion of potential conflicts with these regulatory requirements are addressed in Section 4.12.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Federal and State Regulations Applicable land use plan, policies, and regulations of agencies with jurisdiction over the Project are detailed below. Coastal Zone Management Act The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 provides for management of the nation’s coastal resources, including the Great Lakes, and balances economic development with environmental conservation. The California Coastal Commission has jurisdiction for CZMA implementation throughout the state. 1 The California Coastal Act contains numerous enforceable policies that are directed at protecting and, where feasible, restoring coastal resources. The California Coastal Commission applies the Coastal Act’s policies when reviewing applications for coastal development permits in California state waters. The Coastal Commission also applies land use policies when reviewing federally licensed and permitted activities to ensure they are consistent with the State’s coastal management program in accordance with the CZMA federal consistency provision. California Government Code California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e) provides that facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, and transmission of water supplies are exempt from local (i.e., city and county) building and zoning ordinances. The facilities evaluated in this EIR all relate exclusively to the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water and are, therefore, legally exempt from Santa Cruz County, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Capitola building and zoning ordinances. California State Lands Commission The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable lakes and waterways. The State Lands Commission also has certain residual and review authority for tidelands and submerged lands legislatively granted in trust to local jurisdictions. All tidelands and submerged lands, granted and ungranted, as well and navigable lakes and waterways, are subject to the protections of the Common Law Public Trust. 1 Except within the San Francisco Bay-Delta where the Bay Conservation and Development Commission has authority for implementation of CZMA within its jurisdictional area. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act (Public Resources Code Section 30000 et seq.) was enacted by the State Legislature in 1976 to provide long-term protection of the state’s 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of current and future generations. The Coastal Act provides for the long-term management of lands within California’s coastal zone boundary, as established by the Legislature and defined in Coastal Act (Section 30103). The width of the coastal zone varies across the state, extending inland a couple hundred feet in some locations to 5 miles in others, and offshore out to 3 miles. The landward extent of the coastal zone in the Project vicinity is shown on Figure 4.12-1. The basic goals of the Coastal Act, per Public Resources Code Section 30001.5, are: (a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. (d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. The Coastal Act includes specific policies to achieve these goals within the coastal zone (see Division 20 of the Public Resources Code). These policies constitute the statutory standards applied to coastal planning and regulatory decisions made by the CCC, pursuant to the Coastal Act. The Coastal Act requires that individual jurisdictions adopt an LCP to implement the Coastal Act at the local level. As discussed below, upon certification of the LCP by the CCC, the local government becomes the coastal development permit (CDP) permitting authority. Local Coastal Programs The Coastal Act created a unique partnership between the state (acting through the CCC) and local government entities (15 coastal counties and 61 cities) to manage the conservation and development of coastal resources through a comprehensive planning and regulatory program. This is accomplished primarily through the preparation of local coastal programs, or policies and regulations adopted by coastal local governments to carry out Coastal Act policies at the local level. Upon CCC certification of a local coastal program, authority for issuance of coastal development permits is transferred from the state to the certified local government. The County of Santa Cruz and the Cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola have adopted LCP’s which have been certified. The SC WWTF, the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well, and some pipeline segments are within the limits of the Local Coastal Zone, and so are subject to the regulations of the relevant jurisdiction’s Local Coastal Programs. The local coastal programs for these jurisdictions and their relevant regulations and policies are described in more detail below. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation Local Regulations California state law requires each county and city to adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (Government Code section 65300). State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65302(a)) establishes the requirements for elements to be included in the general plan. Applicability of general plan and local zoning codes to the Project are described below. Section 4.12.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, discusses specific provisions applicable to the Project. Santa Cruz County The Santa Cruz County General Plan is integrated with the Local Coastal Program (County General Plan and LCP) and was most recently certified by the California Coastal Commission in 1994 (County of Santa Cruz, 1994). It is a comprehensive, long-term planning document for the unincorporated areas of the County. The County General Plan and LCP provide policies and programs to guide the future growth and physical development of the unincorporated portion of the County. The Land Use Element of the County General Plan and LCP provides for the designation and location of all types of land uses throughout unincorporated County lands. The Santa Cruz County planning and zoning regulations are set forth in Title 13 (Planning and Zoning Regulations) of the County’s municipal code. The County’s zoning regulations (Chapter 13.10) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses with the zoning classifications of the County sites for which Project components are proposed with a use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law (i.e., Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites, Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site; see Table 4.12-1). Pursuant to Chapter 13.20, all Project elements located in or which cross the Coastal Zone would require a coastal development permit. Per chapter 9.70, an encroachment would be required for the installation of pipelines within county-maintained roads and rights-of-way. The Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan is another County document relevant to land use within the Project area. The Plan describes principles and strategies for a sustainable development pattern in Santa Cruz County (County of Santa Cruz, 2014). The primary goal of the Plan is to reduce the production of greenhouse gas emissions, which are principally generated by cars in Santa Cruz County. Strategies recommended include locating housing, employment, and services closer together; developing in already developed areas (infill); giving pedestrians and bicyclists more priority along certain streets; and improving the regional economy. The Plan includes suggestions for amendments to the general plan and zoning regulations to encourage sustainable development, which would require a public hearing and environmental review process before they are adopted. City of Santa Cruz The City adopted its current General Plan in 2012 (City of Santa Cruz, 2012). The City’s General Plan 2030 addresses state-mandated topics (Land Use, Circulation, Conservation, Open Space, Safety, and Noise), as well as Community Design, Historic Preservation, Arts and Culture, Civic and Community Facilities, and Economic Development. It contains goals, policies, and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation implementation measures that provide planning guidance for the future of the City. Specifically, the Land Use Element includes a discussion of current land uses and defines allowable uses within land use designations identified on the City’s Land Use Map. The City’s certified LCP was not updated as part of General Plan 2030, but is currently being revised as a separate document. The existing LCP is contained in the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program 1990-2005 and includes designated coastal policies, regulations, and maps applicable to the coastal zone portions of the City (City of Santa Cruz, 2007). The LCP was last amended in 2007 with the addition of the Citywide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan. The City of Santa Cruz planning and zoning regulations are set forth in Title 24 (Zoning) of the City’s municipal code. The City’s zoning regulations (Chapter 24.10) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses with the zoning classification of the site for which Project components are proposed (i.e., SC WWTF; see Table 4.12-1) with a special use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law. Pursuant to Chapter 24.08, the District would be required to obtain a coastal development permit for those components of the Project proposed within the coastal zone. Per Chapter 15.28, an encroachment permit would be required for the installation of pipelines within city-maintained roads and rights-of-way. City of Capitola The City of Capitola General Plan was adopted in 2014 and provides a comprehensive vision for future development in Capitola (Capitola, 2014). It contains land use designations for Capitola and adjacent planning areas and contains goals, policies, and programs for each general plan element. The General Plan also includes the relevant goals, policies, and programs of the City’s certified LCP, which was certified as a separate document in 1981 and subsequently amended in 2001 and 2005. The City planning and zoning regulations are set forth in Title 17 (Zoning) of the City’s municipal code. The City’s zoning regulations (Chapter 17.42) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses within the zoning classification of the site for which Project components are proposed (i.e., Monterey Ave Recharge Well Site; see Table 4.12-1) with a conditional use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law. Pursuant to Chapter 17.46, the District would be required to obtain a coastal development permit for those components of the Project proposed within the coastal zone. Per Chapter 15.28, an encroachment permit would be required for the installation of pipelines within city-maintained roads and rights-of-way. Special Districts Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission The Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC) is an autonomous regional transportation planning agency headquartered in downtown Santa Cruz. The SCCRTC was created by the State of California in 1972 to carry out transportation responsibilities that cross city-county boundaries in Santa Cruz County. The SCCRTC is leading the planning effort for the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network and Rail Trail in Santa Cruz County. The SCCRTC staff is currently analyzing four scenarios for the Rail Trail, which include a trail-only option as well as bus, passenger, and freight train use of the corridor, which is planned to be Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation brought before the commission in December 2018. These trails will provide approximately 50 miles of multi‐use bicycle/pedestrian trails spanning the length of Santa Cruz County and spur trails connecting to neighborhoods, schools, parks, coastal access areas, transit hubs, commercial centers, and existing trails (SCCRTC, 2018). 4.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on land use if it would: • Physically divide an established community. • Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance and with Coastal Zone Management Act) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. • Conflict with applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan; • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Approach to Analysis This analysis evaluates the potential for Project construction or operations to conflict with existing adopted plans and regulations, and the potential for these activities to degrade or otherwise require new recreational facilities. The analysis considers applicable policy and planning documents, and existent recreational lands and facilities in the Project area, as described above. The evaluation of potential conflicts with plans, policies, and regulations included the following steps: 1. determining the applicability of relevant land use plans, policies and regulations to the Project based on location, applicability to this type of Project, and authority of each jurisdiction, 2. assessing whether the plan, policy, or regulation was adopted for the purpose of reducing an environmental effect, and 3. analyzing whether the Project would fundamentally conflict with the policy, plan or regulation. The discussion in Impact LU-1, below, addresses applicable regulatory requirements and the Project’s potential to conflict with those requirements. Potential effects on bikeways are addressed in Section 4.15, Transportation. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation • Physically divide an established community. None of the proposed facilities or construction activities would physically divide an established community. All of the linear facilities that are proposed as part of the Project (e.g., pipelines) would be underground, except where pipelines span existing bridges, and the overlying areas would be restored after construction. During construction, immediate access to neighborhoods, commercial areas, schools, and parks could be temporarily disrupted (e.g., lane closures or detours). But these impacts would be temporary and would not divide an established community (see Section 4.15, Transportation, for additional discussion). Proposed above-ground Project components, including the treatment facilities and recharge and monitoring wells, would be constructed within the limits of existing parcels, and would, therefore, not divide an established community. Thus, the criterion related to the division of an established community is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. • Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. This criterion is addressed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this EIR. • Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. The Project does not propose to construct new homes or businesses and, and with only approximately six additional operational staff positions required (and that could come from within the Project vicinity), would not increase the number of residents in the Project area. (see Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, for discussion of indirect effects related to growth.) The Project would occur in the vicinity of and could be noticeable to users of recreational facilities, as presented in Table 4.12-2. For example, construction of the Willowbrook Recharge Well would occur on a parcel situated between Willowbrook Park and nearby private recreational facilities associated with Santa Cruz Montessori School. And construction of the Cabrillo College Recharge Wells would occur on sites near the school’s ballfields and other nearby private recreational facilities associated with Twin Lakes Church. The Project would not directly affect or restrict access to park or recreational facilities. Nor would the Project be expected to cause permanent displacement of users of these areas. Construction activities would, however, be noticeable to users of the park and recreational facilities. As a result, some may choose to utilize other parks and recreational facilities in the Project area during Project construction. As represented in Table 4.12-2, there are a substantial number of parks and recreational facilities within 0.25 miles of proposed Project sites, and many more within the broader Project vicinity (i.e., cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and communities of Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos). Accordingly, sufficient alternative recreational facilities exist in the immediate Project area to accommodate any temporarily “displaced” recreationists, and that any increased use of these facilities caused by the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration. Therefore, this significance criterion is not discussed further. • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. The Project does not include recreational facilities and would not result in the need for new or expanded recreational facilities. Thus, the significance criterion related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.12-3. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.12-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – LAND USE AND RECREATION Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.12-1: The Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LS NOTE: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required Impact Discussion Impact 4.12-1: The Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Less than Significant) This section evaluates the Project’s potential to conflict with applicable plans, policies, and regulations pertaining to land use. The applicable plans, policies, and regulations related to these topics are presented in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, and discussed further in the following paragraphs. Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that EIRs discuss “any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable general plans, specific plans and regional plans.” There are numerous plans, policies, and regulations that either are implicated by relevant significance criteria or were adopted for environmental purposes and thus are evaluated under the appropriate topical sections of this EIR. As an example, Section 4.3, Air Quality, evaluates whether the Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan. Accordingly, potential conflicts with air quality plans are discussed in Section 4.3. State Plans, Policies and Regulations California Coastal Act As discussed in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, the California Coastal Act outlines broad policy goals for the State’s coastal zone. As also noted in that section, where an LCP has been certified, responsibility for implementing Coastal Act policies is transferred to the local government and the LCP becomes the standard of review for planning and permitting decisions. All of the Project components under consideration within the coastal zone would occur on sites subject to a certified LCP. Accordingly, the policies of the applicable LCPs would be expected to be the primary standard of review for permitting decisions. However, it is possible the Coastal Act policies could have direct applicability to some or all portions of the Project, depending upon State and local agency interpretations of jurisdiction, and the selected permitting pathway. Therefore, this EIR considers generally the potential for the Project to conflict with the broad policy goals of the Coastal Act, while acknowledging that determinations regarding Project Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation conformity are ultimately made by the California Coastal Commission. As presented in Table 4.12-4, below, the Project would not be expected to conflict with the Coastal Act’s policy goals. The impact, would therefore be less than significant. TABLE 4.12-4 CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT POLICY GOALS Policies Consistency Section 30001.5 (a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and artificial resources. No Conflict. The purpose of the Project is to help address overdraft conditions within the groundwater basin. The Project would protect, maintain, and enhance coastal resources by: 1) locating primarily within previously developed areas; 2) utilizing treated effluent as a supply source; 3) helping to achieve sustainable groundwater pumping; 4) reducing the rate of seawater intrusion into coastal aquifers; and 5) providing increased water supply reliability for all users within the coastal zone, including coastal-dependent, recreational and visitor serving. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. No Conflict. The Project would be located primarily within previously developed areas and would utilize treated effluent as a supply source. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. No Conflict. Project construction and operations would occur on sites landward of the shoreline. With the potential exception of temporary lane closures along some roads within the coastal zone, the Project would not be expected to affect public shoreline access or recreational opportunities. (d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. No Conflict. The purpose of the Project is to replenish the groundwater basin. It does not propose increased groundwater pumping or other supply increases, such that water allocations would be affected. Nevertheless, the Project would increase water supply reliability within the coastal zone, thereby benefitting existing and potential future coastal-dependent and coastal-related customers within the District’s service area. (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in preparing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. No Conflict. The District is coordinating with state and local agencies, stakeholders, and communities interested in and/or affected by the Project. These include the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards, California Coastal Commission, County of Santa Cruz, cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, customers within the District’s service area, and the general public. Coordination efforts have included one-on-one meetings between District and agency staffs, open houses, and scoping meetings, among others. California Government Code As noted in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e) provides that facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, and transmission of water supplies are exempt from local (i.e., city and county) building and zoning ordinances. As Project facilities each relate to the production, generation, treatment, and transmission of water and are, they would be expected to be exempt from Santa Cruz County, City of Santa Cruz, and City of Capitola building and zoning ordinances, including associated permitting requirements. However, as discussed further in the sections that follow, the policies of general plans and LCPs within these jurisdictions would continue to apply. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation Local Plans, Policies and Regulations County of Santa Cruz Table 4.12-5 Identifies the Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Plan goals, policies and objectives related to land use and applicable to the Project. The table includes an analysis of the Project’s potential to conflict with these provisions. TABLE 4.12-5 APPLICABLE COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ COUNTY – RELEVANT PLANS AND POLICIES Policies Consistency General Plan and LCP – Land Use 2.2.3 Reservation of Public Works capacity for Coastal Priority Uses No Conflict. The Project would not modify the District’s water supply capacity or allocations (LCP) In the Coastal Zone, reserve capacity in existing or planned public works facilities for Coastal Priority Uses. Policy 2.21.2 Location of Public Facility/Institutional Land Uses Allow public facility uses in all urban residential land use designation and zoning districts as well as limited public facility uses in commercial designations and districts as regulated in Volume II of the County Code. 2.21.6 Cooperative Planning of Public Facility/ Institutional Uses Encourage cooperative planning and Master Plan review between appropriate review agencies such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Health Services Planning Agency, Air Resources Control District, etc., to assure adequate assessment of public facility needs. No Conflict. Volume II of the County Code (Title 13) provides the specific regulations and requirements for public facilities built in different zoning districts. The Project public facilities would be located in areas zoned Light Industrial; Single-Family Residential; and Parks, Recreation, and Open Space. The Project public facilities are allowed in these zoning districts. The specific municipal codes are described under Local Regulations. No Conflict. The District has been actively coordinating with state and local agencies with interest in the Project, including the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, and State Water Resources Control Board, among others. General Plan – Objective 2.22 Coastal Dependent Development (LCP) To ensure priority for coastal-dependent and coastal-related development over other development on the coast. 2.22.1 Priority of Uses within the Coastal Zone (LCP) Maintain a hierarchy of land use priorities within the Coastal Zone: No Conflict. Project components proposed for locations within in the County’s Coastal Zone are limited to pipelines, which would be buried/underground within existing developed areas, inland from the coast, and would not preclude coastal-dependent uses. First Priority: Agriculture and coastal-dependent industry Second Priority: Recreation, including public parks; visitors serving commercial uses; and coastal recreation facilities. Third Priority: Private residential, general industrial, and general commercial uses. 2.22.2 Maintaining Priority Uses (LCP) Prohibit the conversion of any existing priority use to another use, except for another use of equal or higher priority. No Conflict. Existing priority uses would be maintained as part of the Project. As noted in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, the County’s zoning regulations (Chapter 13.10) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses with the zoning classification of the site for which Project components are proposed (i.e., Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex, Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites and Twin Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation Lakes Church Recharge Well Site; see Table 4.12-1) with a use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e), which exempts from local building and zoning regulations facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, and transmission of water supplies, the County’s special use permit requirement would not apply. As shown on Figure 4.12-1, Project facilities are proposed for locations both in and outside the County’s Coastal Zone. Pursuant to Chapter 13.20, a CDP would be required for Project components in the Coastal zone. As indicated in Chapter 3, Project Description, the District would prepare and submit to the County and or CCC for review and approval a Coastal Development Permit application. 2 Issuance of the CDP must meet all applicable land use regulations and findings consistent with the CCA and County’s LCP. Similarly, pipelines for the Project would require an encroachment permit pursuant to Chapter 9.70 of the County municipal code. As also indicated in Chapter 3 of this EIR, the District would prepare and submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an encroachment permit application. For the reasons set forth in Table 4.12-3, and through adherence to the above-referenced provisions, the Project would not conflict with applicable County of Santa Cruz land use policies and regulations. The impact would be less than significant. City of Santa Cruz Table 4.12-6 identifies all City of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Program policies, objectives, and programs related to land use and applicable to the Project. The table includes an analysis of the Project’s potential to conflict with these provisions. TABLE 4.12-6 APPLICABLE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES Policies Project’s Potential to Conflict General Plan No Conflict. The Project would provide a supplemental water supply that would enable continued provision of community services in a manner that meets the needs of the population, while also protecting groundwater resources. Goal CC2 Comprehensive community facilities and services CC2.1 Provide community services and facilities in keeping with the needs of a growing and diverse population. CC3.6 Coordinate major land use planning decisions in all three jurisdictions served by the City water system based on water supply availability. Land Use Element 1.2.2 No Conflict. The District has been actively coordinating with state and local agencies with interest in the Project, including the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, and State Water Resources Control Board, among others. Work with the County to ensure that lands within the City’s Planning Area are developed with appropriate uses. 2 Pursuant to Coastal Act Section 30601.3, where a project is proposed for areas subject to a certified LCP and the CCC’s retained jurisdiction, the CCC may process a consolidated permit, provided that all parties (i.e., the LCP jurisdiction, the CCC, and the applicant) agree. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation TABLE 4.12-6 (CONTINUED) APPLICABLE CITY OF SANTA CRUZ LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES Policies Project’s Potential to Conflict Local Coastal Program – Coastal Policies Economic Development Element 3.1 Encourage the expansion and selective attraction of industrial uses that do not pollute or use excessive resources, such as water and energy, and are appropriate for Santa Cruz' character and discourage inappropriate uses from considering a Santa Cruz location. Environmental Quality Element H. Wastewater Treatment 7.2 Maintain and upgrade the wastewater collection and treatment system in an environmentally sound and fiscally efficient manner, as needed, due to increases in population, unit flows, and changes in land use. Land Use Element B. Balanced Community Ensure that future growth and development of Santa Cruz occurs consistent with the City's carrying capacity and that such growth and development does not lead to the overdraft of any water source, the creation of unacceptable levels of air pollution, or the loss of prime agricultural land. E. Concurrency 4.2 Consider natural and developed resources in the siting and construction of community facilities ensuring that development relates both visually and functionally to the surrounding environment and that natural resources are protected. No Conflict. The Project would involve reclamation of wastewater to reduce impacts on the basin’s groundwater supply. The treatment facilities would be sited within existing developed or disturbed areas and be powered by electricity. Therefore, the Project would neither pollute or use excessive resources that would be inappropriate for the City’s character. No Conflict. The Project could involve development of treatment facilities within the SC WWTF complex. These facilities would be sited within existing developed areas of the complex, would complement the existing treatment system, and would be funded by the Soquel Creek Water District. No Conflict. The Project would provide a supplemental supply of water necessary to reduce overdraft conditions within the basin. The Project would not result in a net increase in overall water supply, such that it would cause growth or development of Santa Cruz which could lead to the overdraft of any water source, unacceptable levels of air pollution, or loss of agricultural lands. (See Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations, for additional discussion of growth.) No Conflict. The Project could involve development of treatment and conveyance facilities within the SC WWTF complex and roadway rights-of-way. These facilities would be sited within existing developed areas of the complex and roadways, would complement the existing treatment system, and would be funded by the Soquel Creek Water District. Local Coastal Program – Neary Lagoon Management Plan Coastal Act Goals 3) Give priority to coastal-dependent development — uses of land and water that by their very nature require coastal sites — over other development on the coast. Land Use 6.1.3 Continue to adhere to and enforce LCP requirements that restrict the types of structures allowable within the 100-foot buffer around the lagoon and wetland areas. No Conflict. The Project components proposed at the SC WWTF would be within the footprint of the existing SC WWTF and would not preclude future coastaldependent uses. No Conflict. The Project components proposed at the SC WWTF would be within the footprint of the existing SC WWTF and would not affect access to the park and adjacent facilities. Community Facilities 7.1 Preserve access to the park and adjacent utilities. 7.1.1 Continue to maintain the main entry road to Neary Lagoon as part of the wastewater treatment plant facilities. 8.1 Improve the quality and amount of public access opportunities at the lagoon. 8.5 Improve and develop a new plan for recreation facilities in management zone J and limit active recreation uses to this zone of the management area. As noted in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, the City’s zoning regulations (Chapter 24.10) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses with the zoning classification of the site for Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation which Project components are proposed (i.e., SC WWTF; see Table 4.12-1) with a special use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e), which exempts from local building and zoning regulations facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, and transmission of water supplies, the City’s special use permit requirement would not apply. As shown on Figure 4.12-1, Project facilities are proposed for locations both in and outside the County’s Coastal Zone. Pursuant to Chapter 24.08, a CDP would be required for Project components in the Coastal zone. As indicated in Chapter 3, Project Description, the District would prepare and submit to the City and/or CCC for review and approval a Coastal Development Permit application. Issuance of the CDP must meet all applicable land use regulations and findings consistent with the CCA and City’s LCP. Similarly, pipelines for the Project would require an encroachment permit pursuant to Chapter 15.28 of the City’s municipal code. As also indicated in Chapter 3 of this EIR, the District would prepare and submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an excavation (encroachment) permit application. For the reasons set forth in Table 4.12-3, and through adherence to the above-referenced provisions, the Project would not conflict with applicable City of Santa Cruz land use policies and regulations. The impact would be less than significant. City of Capitola Table 4.12-7 identifies City of Capitola General Plan and Local Coastal Plan policies, objectives, and programs related to land use and applicable to the Project. The table includes an analysis of the Project’s potential to conflict with these provisions. As noted in Section 4.12.3, Regulatory Framework, the City’s zoning regulations (Chapter 17.42) identify public utility facilities as allowable uses with the zoning classification of the site for which Project components are proposed (i.e., Monterey Ave Recharge Well Site; see Table 4.12-1) with a conditional use permit, unless exempt by federal or state law. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 53091 (d) and (e), which exempts from local building and zoning regulations facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, and transmission of water supplies, the City’s special use permit requirement would not apply. As shown on Figure 4.12-1, Project facilities are proposed for locations both in and outside the County’s Coastal Zone. Pursuant to Chapter 17.46, a CDP would be required for Project components in the Coastal zone. As indicated in Chapter 3, Project Description, the District would prepare and submit to the City and/or CCC for review and approval a Coastal Development Permit application. Issuance of the CDP must meet all applicable land use regulations and findings consistent with the CCA and City’s LCP. Similarly, pipelines for the Project would require an encroachment permit pursuant to Chapter 15.28 of the City’s municipal code. As also indicated in Chapter 3 of this EIR, the District would prepare and submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an excavation (encroachment) permit application. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation TABLE 4.12-7 APPLICABLE LAND USE PLANS AND POLICIES Policies Project’s Potential to Conflict City of Capitola General Plan and Local Coastal Plan Goal LU-4 Protect and enhance the special character of residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-4.4 Public Facilities. Ensure that adequate public infrastructure, facilities, and services are maintained in residential neighborhoods. Policy LU-4.7 Planning Projects. Ensure that future planning efforts for non-residential areas carefully consider potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods. No Conflict. The Monterey Avenue Recharge Well, the only above-ground Project component proposed for Capitola, would be sited within District-owned property which currently contains water-related infrastructure, and is surrounded by an approximately 6-foot tall cinderblock wall. The proposed use would not be substantially different from original intended purpose at the site. Policy LU-7.2 Public Infrastructure. Ensure that all improvements to public infrastructure, including roadways, parking, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, public signage, and street trees, support a pedestrian-friendly environment and a distinctive sense of place. Goal OSC-1 Promote sustainability as a foundation for Capitola’s way of life. Policy OSC-1.4 Regional Partnerships. Continue to work with neighboring cities, Santa Cruz County, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), and other governmental agencies to promote sustainability throughout the region. No Conflict. The District has been actively coordinating with state and local agencies with interest in the Project, including the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, County of Santa Cruz, and State Water Resources Control Board, among others. The purpose of the Project is to improve the sustainability of the District’s groundwater supply. Policy OSC-1.5 New Development. Encourage all new development projects in Capitola to incorporate sustainable building techniques. For the reasons set forth in Table 4.12-3, and through adherence to the above-referenced provisions, the Project would not conflict with applicable City of Capitola land use policies and regulations. The impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.12.5 References – Land Use and Recreation City of Capitola Community Development, 2014. Capitola General Plan. City of Santa Cruz, 2007. City of Santa Cruz Local Coastal Program. Last amended October 25, 1994. City of Santa Cruz Planning and Community Development, 2012. City of Santa Cruz General Plan 2030. City of Santa Cruz, 2008. City-wide Creeks and Wetlands Management Plan. County of Santa Cruz, 1994. Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program, May 24, 1994. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.12 Land Use and Recreation County of Santa Cruz, 2014. Sustainable Santa Cruz County Plan. Available at http://www.sccoplanning.com/Portals/2/County/planning/policy/ sustainablesantacruzcounty/Final-Plan-Ch1-Ch4.pdf. Accessed on May 9, 2018. County of Santa Cruz, 2018. Geographic Information Services, Available at http://gis.co.santacruz.ca.us/PublicGISWeb/. Accessed on January 31, 2018. Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC), 2018. Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network/Rail Tail Webpage. Available at https://sccrtc.org/projects/ multi-modal/monterey-bay-sanctuary-scenic-trail/. Accessed on February 9, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.12-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration 4.13 Noise and Vibration This section evaluates the potential for construction and operation of the Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention Project (Project) to result in adverse noise and vibration impacts. The analysis included in this section was developed based on data collected in the vicinity of Project sites, as well as information provided in the County of Santa Cruz General Plan (County of Santa Cruz, 1994), City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan (City of Santa Cruz, 2012), City of Capitola General Plan (City of Capitola, 2014), local noise ordinances and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Construction Noise Model (FHWA, 2006), and the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA, 2006). Comments received during Project scoping relative to Noise and Vibration requested the EIR consider potential for excessive noise and vibration as a result of the proposed facilities, pipelines, and recharge wells, impacts to nearby residents including sensitive receptors, potential for nighttime noise, and include a discussion of applicable mitigation measures. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.13.1 Principles of Noise and Vibration Technical Background and Noise Terminology Noise can be generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) that is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. Sound pressure fluctuations can be measured in units of hertz (Hz), which correspond to the frequency of a particular sound. Typically, sound does not consist of a single frequency, but rather a broad band of frequencies varying in levels of magnitude (sound power). The sound pressure level, therefore, constitutes the additive force exerted by a sound corresponding to the frequency/sound power level spectrum. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hz and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA). Frequency A-weighting follows an international standard methodology of frequency de-emphasis and is typically applied to community noise measurements. Some representative noise sources and their corresponding A-weighted noise levels are shown on Figure 4.13-1. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 NOISE LEVEL (dBA, Leq) PUBLIC REACTION 110 COMMON INDOOR NOISE LEVELS COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS Rock Band Jet Flyover at 1000 Ft. 100 LOCAL COMMITTEE ACTIVITY WITH INFLUENTIAL OR LEGAL ACTION Gas Lawn Mower at 3 Ft. 4 Times As Loud 90 LETTERS OF PROTEST COMPLAINTS LIKELY COMPLAINTS POSSIBLE COMPLAINTS RARE Twice As Loud REFERENCE 80 70 Food Blender at 3 Ft. Diesel Truck at 50 Ft. Garbage Disposal at 3 Ft. Noisy Urban Daytime Shouting at 3 Ft. Vacuum Cleaner at 10 Ft. Gas Lawn Mower at 100 Ft. Commercial Area Heavy Traffic at 300 Ft. 1/2 As Loud 1/4 As Loud ACCEPTANCE Inside Subway Train (New York) 60 Large Business Office 50 Dishwasher Next Room 40 Small Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Library Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime 30 Concert Hall (Background) Quiet Rural Nighttime 20 Broadcast and Recording Studio 10 Threshold of Hearing 0 SOURCE: Caltrans, 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Protocol. September 2013 Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. . 160164 Figure 4.13-1 Effects of Noise on People 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. Noise level is a measure of noise at a given instant in time. Community noise varies continuously over a period of time with respect to the contributing sound sources of the community noise environment. Community noise is primarily the product of many distant noise sources, which constitute a relatively stable background noise exposure, with the individual contributors unidentifiable. The background noise level changes throughout a typical day, but does so gradually, corresponding with the addition and subtraction of distant noise sources such as traffic and atmospheric conditions. What makes community noise constantly variable throughout a day, besides the slowly changing background noise, is the addition of short duration single event noise sources (e.g., aircraft flyovers, motor vehicles, sirens), which are readily identifiable to the individual receptor. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment vary the community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise descriptors. The most frequently used noise descriptors are summarized below: L eq : the energy-equivalent sound level used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour. The L eq is the constant sound level, which would contain the same acoustic energy as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average noise exposure level for the given time period). L max : the instantaneous maximum noise level for a specified period of time. L dn : a 24-hour day and night A-weighted noise exposure level, which accounts for the greater sensitivity of most people to nighttime noise by weighting noise levels at night (“penalizing” nighttime noises). Noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted (penalized) by adding 10 dB to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noises. CNEL: the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); similar to L dn , the CNEL adds a 5-dB “penalty” for the evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. in addition to a 10-dB penalty between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. As a general rule, in areas where the noise environment is dominated by traffic, the L eq during the peak-hour is generally within one to two decibels of the L dn at that location (Caltrans, 2013a). Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories: • Subjective effects of annoyance and dissatisfaction; • Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning; and • Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling. Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. Because the effects of noise on people vary from person to person, it is not possible to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration with noise. Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the baseline noise condition (typically the existing environment) to which one has adapted: the so-called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. Some examples of public reaction to various noise levels are provided in Figure 4.13-1. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise levels, the following relationships occur: • Under controlled conditions in an acoustics laboratory, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern changes in sound levels of 1 dB. • Outside of such controlled conditions, the trained ear can detect changes of 2 dB in normal environmental noise. • It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear, however, can barely perceive noise level changes of 3 dB. • A change in level of 5 dB is a readily perceptible increase in noise level. • A 10 dB change is recognized as twice as loud as the original source (Caltrans, 2013a). These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. Because the decibel scale is based on logarithms, two noise sources do not combine in a simple linear fashion, but rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA. Noise Attenuation Stationary point sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate between 6 dB for hard sites and 7.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement. Hard sites are those with a reflective surface between the source and the receiver such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water. No excess ground attenuation is assumed for hard sites and the changes in noise levels with distance (drop-off rate) is simply the geometric spreading of the noise from the source. Soft sites have an absorptive ground surface such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees. In addition to geometric spreading, an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB (per doubling distance) is normally assumed for soft sites. Line sources (such as traffic noise from vehicles) attenuate at a rate between 3 dB for hard sites and 4.5 dB for soft sites for each doubling of distance from the reference measurement (Caltrans, 2013a). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures, such as a row of buildings, a solid wall, or a berm located between the receptor and the noise source. Fundamentals of Vibration As described in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, groundborne vibration can be a serious concern for nearby neighbors, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard (FTA, 2006). In contrast to airborne noise, groundborne vibration is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of groundborne Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration vibration are trains, buses and heavy trucks on rough roads, and construction activities such as blasting, sheet pile-driving, and operation of heavy earth-moving equipment. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal, which is measured in inches per second (in/sec). The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to express RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Typically, groundborne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receptors for vibration assessment include structures (especially older masonry structures), people who spend a lot of time indoors (especially residents, students, the elderly and sick), and vibration sensitive equipment such as hospital analytical equipment and equipment used in computer chip manufacturing. The effects of groundborne vibration include movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. In extreme cases, the vibration can cause damage to buildings. Building damage is not a factor for most projects, with the occasional exception of blasting and pile-driving during construction. Annoyance from vibration often occurs when the vibration exceeds the threshold of perception by only a small margin. 4.13.2 Environmental Setting Existing Noise-Sensitive Land Uses Human response to noise varies considerably from one individual to another. Effects of noise at various levels can include interference with sleep, concentration, and communication, and can cause physiological and psychological stress and hearing loss. Given these effects, some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise levels than others due to the duration and nature of time people spend at these uses. In general, residences are considered most sensitive to noise as people spend extended period of time in them including the nighttime hours. Therefore, noise impacts to rest and relaxation, sleep, and communication are highest at residential uses. Schools, hotels, hospitals, nursing homes, and recreational uses are also considered to be more sensitive to noise as activities at these land uses involve rest and recovery, relaxation and concentration, and increased noise levels tend to disrupt such activities. Places such as churches, libraries, and cemeteries, where people tend to pray, study, and/or contemplate, are also sensitive to noise but due to the limited time people spend at these uses, impacts are usually tolerable. Commercial and industrial uses are considered the least noise-sensitive. Below is a description of the location of sensitive receptors near the Project sites. Distances to sensitive receptors are measured from the location within the site where Project facilities would be located – where the associated construction use of loudest equipment, and operations noise would be generated – to the location of the noise-sensitive receptor. Evaluating potential noise impacts from the Project site boundary would not be appropriate for this Project, because of the considerable distance between the proposed facility location and the site boundary at several sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration To do so would misrepresent the location of the primary noise source and overstate the noise impacts of the Project. Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Sensitive receptors near the site of the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) at the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF) consist of single-family residences south of Bay Street. Theses residences are approximately 520 feet from the nearest Project site boundary within the SC WWTF. Chanticleer Site Sensitive receptors near the Chanticleer Site consist of single-family and multi-family residences along 17th Avenue and Chanticleer Avenue. The closest sensitive receptors consist of multifamily residences within 50 feet of the Project site’s southwestern boundary. Headquarters-West Annex Site Sensitive receptors near the Headquarters-West Annex Site consist of single-family residences south of the Project site and adjacent to Capitola Avenue, Rosedale Avenue, and Soquel Drive. The closest single-family residences are within 55 feet of the Project site’s southern boundary. Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site consist of single- and multifamily residences and the Santa Cruz Montessori school. Buildings at the Santa Cruz Montessori school are located as close as 70 feet north of the proposed backwash discharge pumps site. The closest residences to the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site are single-family residences approximately 175 feet west of the proposed backwash discharge pumps site. Cabrillo College Recharge Well Site Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Cabrillo North Recharge Well Site consist of the classrooms and facilities at the Delta Alternative High School, Twin Lakes Christian School, and single-family residences to the west, east, and south of the Project site. The closest single-family residences are approximately 1,000 feet east of the proposed recharge well and backwash pumps site. The closest facility on the Cabrillo College grounds, not including sport fields, is the Delta Alternative High School, which is located approximately 310 feet southeast of the site. The Twin Lakes Christian School is approximately 430 feet to the west of the proposed recharge well and backwash pumps site. Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site consist of the classrooms and facilities at the Delta Alternative High School, and single-family residences. The closest single-family residences are approximately 710 feet east of the proposed recharge well and backwash pumps site. The closest facility on the Cabrillo College grounds, not including sport fields, is the Delta Alternative High School, which is located approximately 510 feet north of the site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site consist of residences, the classrooms and facilities at the Cabrillo College and Twin Lakes Christian School. The Twin Lakes Christian School is approximately 235 feet to the west of the site boundary. The closest noise sensitive areas at Cabrillo College to this site, not including sport fields, is the Crocker Theater building located approximately 760 feet to the north of the site boundary and the Delta Alternative High School approximately 500 feet to the east of the site boundary. The closest single-family residences are approximately 765 feet west of the Project site. Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site Sensitive receptors near the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site consist of the First United Pentecostal Church, Shore Life Community Church, as well as single- and multi-family residences. The Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site is within 50 feet of the First United Pentecostal Church building. The Shore Life Community Church building is approximately 150 feet to the east of the Project site. The nearest residence to the Project site consists of a single-family home within 25 feet of the site’s western boundary. Pipeline Alignments The conveyance system could include the installation of an effluent pipeline, a brine pipeline, and purified water pipelines. An overview of the conveyance pipeline routes is illustrated on Figure 3-1. The conveyance pipeline alignments under consideration generally follow disturbed or existing developed road and railroad rights-of-way. Sensitive receptors along the alignments consist of single- and multi-family residences, Santa Cruz High School, Harbor High School, Soquel Elementary School, Twin Lakes Christian School, Capitola Library, Holy Cross Cemetery, Gault Elementary School, Seventh Day Adventist Church, Shore Life Community Church, Pitter-Patter Daycare, Santa Cruz Skilled Nursing Center, Kindred Healthcare Center, Pacific Coast Manor, United Methodist Church of Santa Cruz, Unity Temple of Santa Cruz and Live Oak Elementary School. The nearest sensitive receptors to pipeline construction sites would be approximately 25 feet. Existing Noise Environment at Various Project Sites The noise environment surrounding the various Project sites is influenced by vehicular traffic, such as along Highway 1 and along roadways such as Bay Street, Broadway, Soquel Avenue, Soquel Drive, 41st Avenue, and Capitola Road. Other noise sources in the vicinity of the Project sites include aircraft overflight noise from the Watsonville Municipal Airport, the existing SC WWTF operations, Soquel Creek Water District (District) Headquarters operations, residential activity, and railroad traffic. To quantify the existing ambient noise levels, ESA conducted a noise survey in the vicinity of the Project sites. The noise survey began on January 31, 2018, and consisted of five 24-hour longterm measurements and sixteen 15-minute short-term noise measurements. Figure 4.13-2 illustrates the location of the long-term and short-term noise measurement sites. The results of the short-term noise survey are presented in Table 4.13-1. The results of the long-term noise measurement survey are shown in Table 4.13-2. All long-term noise measurements were conducted Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 1 3 1 ST-10 LT-2 2 LT-4 ST-8 ST-2 ST-16 LT-1 ST-4 ST-9 ST-6 ST-13 ST-14 2 ST-3 ST-11 ST-12 ST-1 LT-3 ST-5 ST-7 ST-15 2 Short Term (ST) LT-5 Long Term (LT) Pipeline Segment Advanced Water Purification Facilities 1 Chanticleer Site 2 3 Santa Cruz WWTF Headquarters-West Annex Site Recharge Well Sites 0 N 1 Mile SOURCE: Google Earth pro, basemap, 2018; ESA, 2018 1 Willowbrook Lane Site 2 Cabrillo College and Twin Lakes Church Sites 3 Monterey Avenue Site Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. . 160164 Figure 4.13-2 Noise Measurement Locations 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-1 15-MINUTE SHORT-TERM AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS Start Date & Time L eq (dBA) L min (dBA) L max (dBA) Primary Noise Source(s) ST-1 (near intersection of Willowbrook Lane and Baseline Drive) 2/1/18 6:56 a.m. 58 54 66 Traffic along Willowbrook Lane ST-2 (near intersection of Willowbrook Lane and Cabrillo College Drive) 2/1/18 7:17 a.m. 62 57 68 Traffic along Willowbrook Lane and Highway 1 ST-3 (Monterey Park) 2/1/18 6:33 a.m. 57 53 70 Traffic along Monterey Avenue ST-4 (near intersection of 42nd Street and Clares Street) 2/1/18 7:47 a.m. 61 49 80 Traffic along Clares Street ST-5 (near intersection of 49th Avenue and Topaz Street) 2/1/18 9:38 a.m. 52 39 69 Traffic along 49th Avenue ST-6 (near intersection of Sommerfeld Street and Capitola Road) 2/1/18 8:10 a.m. 67 51 80 Traffic along Capitola Road ST-7 (near intersection of 30th Avenue and Buckingham Lane) 1/31/18 5:24 p.m. 58 45 71 Traffic along 30th Avenue ST-8 (near intersection of Leila Circle and Capitola Road) 1/31/18 4:57 p.m. 65 48 74 Traffic along Capitola Road ST-9 (near intersection of 7th Avenue and Eddy Lane) 1/31/18 4:30 p.m. 60 44 70 Traffic along 7th Avenue ST-10 (near intersection of Carl Avenue and Soquel Avenue) 1/31/18 4:04 p.m. 64 47 78 Traffic along Soquel Avenue ST-11 (near intersection of Frederick Street and Hanover Street) 1/31/18 3:35 p.m. 57 41 72 Traffic along Handover Street ST-12 (near intersection of Pine Street and Broadway) 1/31/18 3:14 p.m. 60 42 71 Traffic along Broadway Street ST-13 (near intersection of Canfield Avenue and Barson Street) 1/31/18 2:53 p.m. 51 36 69 Traffic along Barson Street ST-14 (near intersection of Main Street and 3rd Street) 1/31/18 2:30 p.m. 56 38 68 Traffic along 3rd Street ST-15 (near intersection of California Street and Trescony Street) 1/31/18 2:03 p.m. 56 40 70 Traffic along California Street ST-16 (Twin Lakes Christian School) 3/23/18 2:03 p.m. 60 57 65 Traffic along Highway 1 Measurement Site NOTES: Measurements at sites ST-1 through ST-6 were collected on February 1, 2018; measurements at Sites ST-7 through ST-15 were collected on January 31, 2018; and measurements at Site ST-16 was collected on March 23, 2018. SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2018 Ambient Noise Survey for the Pure Water Soquel Project. February 1, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-2 24-HOUR LONG-TERM AMBIENT NOISE MONITORING RESULTS L dn (dBA) L min (dBA) L max (dBA) LT-1(east of Cabrillo College baseball field) 72 34 85 Traffic along Highway 1 LT-2 (near intersection of Kennedy Drive and Monterey Avenue) 58 34 76 Traffic along Highway 1 and Monterey Avenue LT-3 (near intersection of Capitola Avenue and Soquel Drive) 56 36 85 Traffic along Capitola Avenue and Soquel Drive, neighborhood sounds and activities at the District yard LT-4 (near intersection of Chanticleer Avenue and Soquel Avenue) 58 38 77 Neighborhood sounds and mechanical equipment use at nearby commercial uses LT-5 (near intersection of Centennial Street and Bay Street) 65 49 92 Traffic along Bay Street Monitor Assumed Primary Noise Source(s) NOTES: Measurements started January 31, 2018 and concluded February 2, 2018, over a 24-hour period. SOURCE: Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2018 Ambient Noise Survey for the Pure Water Soquel Project. February 1, 2018. using a Larson Davis LxT2 sound level meter and all short-term noise measurements were conducted using a Larson Davis 831 sound level meter. The noise meters were calibrated before and after each noise measurement. 4.13.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Federal regulations establish noise limits for medium and heavy trucks (more than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle weight rating) under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 205, Subpart B. The federal truck pass-by noise standard is 80 dBA at 15 meters (approximately 50 feet) from the vehicle pathway centerline. These controls are implemented through regulatory requirements on truck manufacturers. State The State of California establishes noise limits for vehicles licensed to operate on public roads. For heavy trucks, the State pass-by standard is consistent with the federal limit of 80 dBA at approximately 50 feet from the centerline. The State pass-by standard for light trucks and passenger cars (less than 4.5 tons, gross vehicle rating) is also 80 dBA at approximately 50 feet from the centerline. These standards are implemented through controls on vehicle manufacturers and by legal sanction of vehicle operators by State and local law enforcement officials. Local County of Santa Cruz General Plan The County of Santa Cruz General Plan presents several guiding policies relevant to noise. The following noise policies from the County of Santa Cruz General Plan (County of Santa Cruz, 1994) would be relevant to Project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Policy 6.9.1: Commercial and Industrial Development. For all new commercial and industrial developments which would increase noise levels above the maximum allowable standards of the Land Use Guidelines on Figure 6-1 [presented here as Figure 4.13-3], or Figure 6-2 [presented here as Table 4.13-3], the best available control technologies will be used to minimize noise levels. In no case shall the noise levels exceed the standard of Figure 6-2 [shown here as Table 4.13-3]. Since the proposed treatment facilities and recharge wells fall within the description of a new commercial/industrial use, Figure 4.13-3 is referenced below. Policy 6.9.7: Construction Noise. Require mitigation of construction noise as a condition of future project approvals. The County of Santa Cruz General Plan does not specify when construction mitigation measures would be required. For this analysis, Project-related construction noise levels that violate the conditions specified under Ordinance Section 8.30.010(C) (see below) would require mitigation. COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - L dn or CNEL (dBA) LAND USE CATEGORY 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential, Hotel, and Motels Outdoor Sports and Recreation, Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds Schools, Libraries, Museums, Hospitals, Personal Care, Meeting Halls, Churches Office Buildings, Business Commercial, and Professional Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, and Agriculture. Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable Specified land use may be permitted only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements and needed noise insulation features included in the design Unacceptable New construction or development should generally not be undertaken because mitigation is usually not feasible to comply with noise element policies. Figure 4.13-3 County of Santa Cruz Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-3 COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NOISE EXPOSURE STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES1 Category Daytime5 (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) Nighttime2,5 (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) 50 45 70 65 65 60 Hourly L eq - average hourly noise level dBA3 Maximum level, dBA3 Maximum Level dBA - Impulsive Noise4 NOTES: 1 As determined at the property line of the receiving land use. When determined the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards may be applied on the receptor side of the noise barriers or other property line noise mitigation measures. 2 Applies only where the receiving land use operates or is occupied during nighttime hours. 3 Sound level measurements shall be made with “slow” meter response. 4 Sound level measurements shall be made with “fast” meter response. 5 Allowable levels shall be raised to the ambient noise levels where the ambient hourly L is at least 10 dBA lower than the allowable eq level. SOURCE: County of Santa Cruz, 1994. Chapter 6: Public Safety and Noise of the County of Santa Cruz General Plan. May 24, 1994. County of Santa Cruz Noise Ordinance The County of Santa Cruz Municipal Code includes noise regulations in Title 8 – Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 8.30 – Noise. Of the regulations in Chapter 8.30, the following regulations would be applicable to the Project: Section 8.30.010(C). The following factors shall be considered when determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists: (1) Loudness (Intensity) of the Sound a. Day and Evening Hours. For the purpose of this factor, a noise shall be automatically considered offensive1 if it occurs between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and it is: i. Clearly discernible at a distance of 150 feet from the property line of the property from which it is broadcast; or ii. In excess of 75 decibels at the edge of the property line of the property from which the sound is broadcast, as registered on a sound measuring instrument meeting the American National Standard Institute’s Standard S1.4-1971 (or more recent revision thereof) for Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters, or an instrument which provides equivalent data. For this analysis, it is assumed that the County’s daytime construction exterior noise standard is an hourly L eq (i.e., 75 dBA L eq ). b. Night Hours. For purposes of this factor, a noise shall be automatically considered offensive if it occurs between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. and it is: 1 “Offensive noise” means any noise which is loud, boisterous, irritating, penetrating, or unusual, or that is unreasonably distracting in any other manner such that it is likely to disturb people of ordinary sensitivities in the vicinity of such noise, and includes, but is not limited to, noise made by an individual alone or by a group of people engaged in any business, activity, meeting, gathering, game, dance, or amusement, or by any appliance, contrivance, device, tool, structure, construction, vehicle, ride, machine, implement, or instrument. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration i. Made within 100 feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes; or ii. Clearly discernible at a distance of 100 feet from the property line of the property from which it is broadcast; or iii. In excess of 60 decibels at the edge of the property line of the property from which the sound is broadcast, as registered on a sound measuring instrument meeting the American National Standard Institute’s Standard S1.4-1971 (or more recent revision thereof) for Type 1 or Type 2 sound level meters, or an instrument which provides equivalent data. For this analysis, it is assumed that the County’s nighttime construction exterior noise standard is an hourly L eq (i.e., 60 dBA L eq ). City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan The City of Santa Cruz 2030 General outlines several guiding policies relevant to noise. The following policies from the City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan (City of Santa Cruz, 2012) would be relevant to the Project. Policy HZ3.1.1: Require land uses to operate at noise levels that do not significantly increase surrounding ambient noise. Policy HZ3.1.3: Ensure that construction activities are managed to minimize overall noise impacts on surrounding land uses. Policy HZ3.1.4: Minimize the impacts of intermittent urban noise on residents. Policy HZ3.1.5: Develop a system to monitor construction noise impacts on surrounding land uses. Policy HZ3.1.6: Require evaluation of noise mitigation measures for projects that would substantially increase noise. Policy HZ3.1.9: Limit truck traffic in residential and commercial areas to designated truck routes. Policy HZ3.1.11: Require soundwalls, earth berms, setbacks, and other noise reduction techniques for new development, when appropriate and necessary, as conditions of approval. City of Santa Cruz Noise Ordinance The City of Santa Cruz Municipal Code includes noise regulations in Title 9 – Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.36 – Noise. Of the regulations in Chapter 9.36, the following regulations would be applicable to the Project: Section 9.36.010(a). No person shall between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. make, cause, suffer or permit to be made any offensive noise (1) which is made within one hundred feet of any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes, or (2) which disturbs, or would tend to disturb, any person within hearing distance of such noise. Section 9.36.010(c). Subsection (a) shall not apply between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. to any person engaged in performance of a contract for public works awarded by the City of Santa Cruz where the director of public works determines that the project has the potential to disrupt traffic and that this disruption could be alleviated by authorizing Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration construction work to commence at 7:00 a.m. or that due to time constraints on project completion it is necessary to allow the contractor to begin work at 7:00 a.m. Section 9.36.010(d). Subsection (a) shall not apply to any person engaged in performance of a contract for public works awarded by the city of Santa Cruz, in the event of emergency and if the city manager of the city of Santa Cruz so authorizes such work. Section 9.36.010(e). Subsection (a) shall not apply to any person engaged in the performance of a public or private construction project where either the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director, or water department director, in his or her sole discretion, determines that the specific tasks herein below delineated to be undertaken in connection with the subject construction project require an extended period of time to complete or, due to concerns based on public health and safety, those tasks should be undertaken between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. When this determination has been made, the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director or water department director may authorize such tasks to commence, be completed, or be undertaken between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.; however, no such tasks shall be undertaken during these hours without the express written permission of the chief building official, public works director, planning and community development director or water department director and then only to the extent and between the hours specifically authorized in writing by the chief building official, public works director, community development director or water department director. At a minimum, notice of the dates and times such tasks will be undertaken shall be provided by the contractor in accordance with city instructions to all residents, tenants and property owners who occupy or own property within three hundred feet of the site at which such tasks will be performed. i. Large concrete foundation pours which cannot reasonably be split over multiple days; ii. Movement of large quantities of construction materials which cannot safely be completed during normal daytime traffic; iii. Movement of buildings, prefabricated structures or other large items which would cause extensive traffic disruption during non-curfew hours; iv. Construction necessary to minimize disruption of public utilities. City of Capitola General Plan The City of Capitola General Plan outlines several guiding policies relevant to noise. The following noise policies from the City of Capitola General Plan (City of Capitola, 2014) would be relevant to Project. Policy SN-7.1: Noise Sensitive Land Uses. Minimize the exposure of noise sensitive land uses to unacceptable noise levels as identified in Table SN-1 [presented here as Figure 4.13-4]. Noise sensitive land uses shall be as determined by the Community Development Director, including land uses such as residential areas, lodging facilities, libraries, schools, parks, and medical care facilities. Policy SN-7.2: Noise Level Standards. Ensure that noise generated from all land uses and activities in Capitola complies with the noise level standards identified in Table SN-1 [presented here as Figure 4.13-4]. The City Council may allow exceptions to these noise level standards when mitigation of noise impacts is not technically or economically feasible or inconsistent with other City goals, policies, and regulations. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE - L dn or CNEL (dBA) LAND USE CATEGORY 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Residential – Low Density Single Family, Duplex, Mobile Home Residential – Multi-Family Transient Lodging – Motel/Hotel Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditorium, Concert Hall, Amphitheaters Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business, Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture Normally Acceptable Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirement must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable New construction or development generally should not be undertaken. Figure 4.13-4 City of Capitola Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environment Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration City of Capitola Noise Ordinance The City of Capitola Municipal Code includes noise regulations in Title 9 – Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.12 – Noises. Of the regulations in Chapter 9.12, the following regulations would be applicable to the Project: Section 9.12.010(A). It is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to make, or permit to be made, any loud, boisterous, irritating, penetrating or unusual noise, or to keep, harbor or maintain, or to permit the keeping, harboring or maintaining of any barking or howling dogs, or to engage in, hold, conduct, operate, or permit the engaging in, holding, conduct or operation of, any business, public meeting or gathering, game, dance, amusement, appliance, contrivance, device, structure, construction, ride, machine, implement, or instrument, the use, engaging in, conduct or operation of which makes a loud, penetrating, irritating, boisterous or unusual noise, within two hundred feet of any residence, hotel, apartment house, cabin, cottage, cottage court, lodging facility or any building or place regularly used for sleeping purposes in the city between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of any day or days. Section 9.12.010(B). Except when otherwise specified in a land use permit or building permit issued by the city, any construction activity within the city shall be subject to a construction noise curfew. Construction noise shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. on weekdays. Construction noise shall be prohibited on weekends with the exception of Saturday work between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. or emergency work approved by the building official. 4.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact related to noise and vibration if it would: • Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. • Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. • Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. • For a Project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. • For a Project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Approach to Analysis Analysis of the Project’s temporary construction noise effects is based on estimates of construction equipment units and duration of use provided by the District’s engineering consultant. The analyses accounted for attenuation of noise levels due to distances that would be between the construction activity and the nearest sensitive land uses. Construction noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses were estimated using the FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA, 2006) and compared to local noise standards. Short-term construction noise impacts are the increased noise levels that could result from the operation of specified construction equipment compared to existing noise level conditions. The FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment provides guidelines for reasonable criteria for assessment of construction noise (FTA, 2006). The guidance indicates that construction noise that exceeds a 1-hour L eq level of 90 dBA during the day and 80 dBA during the night would provoke an adverse community reaction at noise sensitive land uses (FTA, 2006). For this analysis, the daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards found in the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance of 75 dBA L eq and 60 dBA L eq was used to evaluate whether construction of the facilities and recharge wells would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors near the Project sites. Sensitive receptors located near construction areas that would be exposed to noise levels that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime hours and 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours could experience an adverse reaction. The primary noise source during Project operation would be the onsite pumps at the proposed treatment facilities and recharge wells. Pump station and treatment facility noise at nearby sensitive receptor locations were calculated using Project pump specifications and conceptual site plans provided by the Project applicant. Under the Project, the pumps at the AWPF sites would be fully enclosed and would operate during both daytime and nighttime hours, while the backwash discharge pump at the recharge well sites would be fully submerged in water and would only operate for three hours once every three months during daytime hours. Operational noise levels associated with each of the proposed pump stations were calculated based upon these factors for the nearest sensitive receptor locations and compared to local noise standards. For the analysis of long-term effects on the ambient noise environment, impacts would be considered significant if Project operational noise exceeded a 5 dB increase in noise exposure. This is the level of change which Caltrans identifies as readily perceptible in its Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Caltrans, 2013a). Thus, a 5 dB noise increase threshold is used to assess the significance of operational noise increases. This significance threshold is more stringent than the construction noise threshold because of the permanent longterm nature of Project operations. For the purposes of the assessment of potential vibration impacts on nearby sensitive land uses, the methodology described in Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual was used. For adverse human reaction, the analysis applies the “severe” threshold of 0.4 in/sec PPV for continuous/frequent sources (Caltrans, 2013b). For risk of architectural damage to historic buildings and structures, this analysis applies a threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV (Caltrans, 2013b). A threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV is used to assess risk of damage for all other building types. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Areas of No Project Impact The following criteria were found to result in no impacts and were therefore are not evaluated further: • Exposure of people to excess noise due to proximity to an airport or private airstrip. There are no public airports or private airstrips within the Project sites. The Project sites would not result in the placement of workers in areas where they would be exposed to excessive noise levels associated with airports or airstrips. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to this criterion and this issue is not discussed further below. • Exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration during Project operations. Project operations and routine maintenance would not expose people to, or generate, groundborne vibration. Groundborne noise occurs when vibrations transmitted through the ground result in secondary radiation of noise. Groundborne noise is generally associated with underground railway operations and with construction activities such as blasting, neither of which would result from implementation of the Project. Operation of the Project would not involve equipment that would produce groundborne vibration. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to this criterion and this issue is not discussed further below. Impact Summary Table 4.13-4, Summary Impacts – Noise and Vibration, provides a summary of potential impacts related to noise and vibration, and significance determinations at each Project component site. TABLE 4.13-4 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – NOISE AND VIBRATION Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.13-1: Construction of the Project would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances. SUM Impact 4.13-2: Project construction would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. SUM Impact 4.13-3: Operation of the Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. LS Impact 4.13-4: The Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration. Impact 4.13-5: The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. LSM LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant Impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation SUM = Significant and Unavoidable Impact with Mitigation Impact Analysis Impact 4.13-1: Construction of the Project would result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) The Project would involve the construction of a new AWPF, recharge and monitoring wells, and a new conveyance system connecting the AWPF and recharge well facilities. An overview of the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration proposed facilities and pipeline alignments is illustrated on Figure 3-1. The Project facilities would be built over approximately 36 months, with an expected construction period of Spring 2019 through Spring 2022. The majority of construction activities would occur during normal working hours; weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, development of the recharge wells would require 24-hour drilling for a period of approximately two weeks per well. The majority of off-road equipment and vehicles would be associated with the intensive earthwork and the structural phases of construction. Loud construction equipment such as drill rigs, concrete saws, backhoes, compactors, cranes, excavators, haul trucks, pavers, and rollers would be used during all construction and demolition phases of the Project. Table 4.13-5 shows typical noise levels produced by the types of off-road equipment that would be used during construction of the facilities. TABLE 4.13-5 REFERENCE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS – (50 FEET FROM SOURCE) L max , dBA Hourly L eq , dBA/Percent Used1 Fork Lift 85 81/40 Backhoe 80 76/40 Dozer 85 81/40 Crane 85 77/16 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 81/40 Type of Equipment Treatment Facilities and Recharge Wells Loader 80 76/40 Auger/Rotary Drill Rig 85 78/20 Diesel Driven Pump 77 74/50 Excavator 85 81/40 Tractor 84 80/40 Air Compressor 80 76/40 Pump 77 74/50 Compactor 80 73/20 Loader 80 76/40 Generator Set 82 79/50 Concrete Saw 90 83/20 Vibratory Roller 85 78/20 Scraper 85 81/40 Auger/Rotary Drill Rig 85 78/20 Jackhammer 85 78/20 Conveyance Pipelines NOTES: 1 “Percent used” were obtained from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January 2006. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration The operation of each piece of equipment within the Project construction sites would not be constant throughout the day, as equipment would be turned off when not in use. Over a typical workday, the equipment would be operating at different locations and all the equipment would not operate concurrently at the same location of the Project sites. However, to quantify construction-related noise exposure that could occur at the nearest sensitive receptors, it was assumed that the two loudest pieces of construction equipment would operate at the closest location of the Project sites to the nearest off-site sensitive receptors. Table 4.13-6 presents the highest L max and L eq noise levels that sensitive receptors could be exposed to at each of the construction sites. As described in the Approach to Analysis discussion above, the Project would result in a significant impact if construction activities result in a violation of a local noise ordinance or general plan policy. A summary of impact per Project component is provided below. Potential AWPF Sites SC WWTF Site The construction activities associated with the AWPF at the SC WWTF site would occur within in the City of Santa Cruz. The City of Santa Cruz does not provide any noise standards applicable to short-term construction. However, according to Section 9.36.010(a) of the City of Santa Cruz noise ordinance, the generation of offensive noise (e.g., noise generated during construction) is not allowed between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Construction activities that occur within these hours must obtain written approval from the City of Santa Cruz Public Works Director. Daytime Construction Impacts. Construction at the SC WWTF site would occur within the allowed hours specified in Section 9.36.010(a) of the City of Santa Cruz noise ordinance. Since Project-related construction activities would not conflict with the City of Santa Cruz’s noise ordinance, construction of purification facilities at the SC WWTF site would not conflict with the City’s municipal code. Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Chanticleer Site The construction activities associated with the AWPF at the Chanticleer Site would occur within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance does not allow offensive noise (e.g., construction noise) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that exposes the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 75 dBA L eq . All construction activities at the Chanticleer Site would occur within the daytime hours. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. Construction of the AWPF at the Chanticleer Site would consist of site clearing and grading, excavation, construction of treatment buildings, and installation of equipment. Construction equipment would include a concrete mixer truck, loader, backhoe, forklift, and crane. The construction of these facilities are expected to begin Spring 2019 and take up to approximately 24 months to complete. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-6 SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT MITIGATION Project Component/Site Loudest Two Pieces of Construction Equipment Equipment Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA L max / dBA L eq )a Distance to nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet) Attenuated Noise Level (dBA L max / dBA L eq )b Potential AWPF Sites SC WWTF Site Forklift, Dozer 85/84 520 60/59 Chanticleer Site Forklift, Dozer 85/84 50 85/84 Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF during Wall Construction Auger Drill Rig, Excavator 85/78 10 99/97 Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF after wall constructed Forklift, Dozer 85/84 55 74/73c Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site – Daytime Construction Forklift, Dozer 85/84 70 81/80 Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Construction Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 85/80 175 71/66 Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site – Daytime Construction Forklift, Dozer 85/84 310 65/64 Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Construction Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 85/80 1,000 52/47 Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site – Daytime Construction Forklift, Dozer 85/84 510 60/59 Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Construction Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 85/80 710 56/51 Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Forklift, Dozer Site – Daytime Construction 85/84 235 68/67 Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Rotary Drill Rig, Air Site – Nighttime Construction Compressor 85/80 765 55/50 Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site – Daytime Construction Forklift, Dozer 85/84 25 91/90 Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Construction Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 85/80 25 91/86 Jack and Boring and/or Drilling Sites Concrete Mixer Truck, Auger Drill Rig 85/83 25 91/89 Open Trench Site Concrete Saw and Excavator 90/85 25 96/91 Potential Recharge Well Sites Pipeline Installations NOTES: a Reference construction equipment noise levels were obtained from Caltrans’ Roadway Construction Noise Level (RCNM) (FHWA, 2006). b Assumed an attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance (i.e., soft site), to account for intervening terrain and structures. c A wall would be construction along the southern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site, which would attenuate onsite construction noise by 10 dB. SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January 2006. The sensitive receptors nearest to the Chanticleer Site consists of multi-family residences within 50 feet southwest of the Project site. A forklift and dozer are the two loudest pieces of off-road Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration equipment that would operate at the site during construction. As shown in Table 4.13-6, people living at the multi-family residential building would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 85 dBA and 84 dBA, respectively. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Chanticleer Site would be exposed to noise levels that would exceed the County of Santa Cruz’s daytime noise standard during Project construction. This would be a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. Implementation of the Plan would attenuate construction noise levels by at least 5 dB. This is because, as documented in Best Practices for Calculating Estimated Shielding for Use in the Roadway Construction Noise Manual (FHWA, 2006; Appendix A), completely enclosing or shielding a noise source with a solid barrier attenuates the noise by 8 dB; if the enclosure and/or barrier has some gaps in it, the attenuation effectiveness would be reduced to 5 dB. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Chanticleer Site would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of 79 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, above the County’s construction noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Therefore, this would result in a significant unavoidable impact with mitigation. Headquarters-West Annex Site The construction activities associated with the AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site would occur within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance does not allow offensive noise (e.g., construction noise) between the of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that exposes the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 75 dBA L eq . All construction activities within the Headquarters-West Annex Site would occur during the daytime hours. Construction activities at the Headquarters-West Annex Site is expected to last for approximately 24 months and would include equipment similar to that discussed above for the Chanticleer Site. The first 2.5 months of construction would consist of the construction of the AWPF and a wall along the southern and eastern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Once the wall is constructed, construction of the AWPF would continue for the remainder of the construction period (i.e., 21.5 months). The location of the wall can be found in Figure 3-7. As shown in Figure 3-7, the wall would extend along the entire southern boundary of the proposed Headquarters-West Annex Site and the entire southern boundary and half of the eastern boundary of the existing District’s Headquarters property. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. There are existing sensitive receptors located within 10 feet of where wall construction would occur, as shown in Figure 3-7. The two loudest pieces of off-road construction equipment that would be operating during the construction of the wall is an auger drill and excavator to install the pier foundations. As shown, in Table 4.13-6, the singlefamily residences south of the proposed wall would be exposed to a noise level to L max and L eq Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration construction noise levels of 99 dBA and 97 dBA, respectively. Noise generated during the construction of the wall would expose nearby single-family residences to noise levels that would exceed the County’s day time noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . During construction of the AWPF, off-road construction equipment could operate as close as 55 feet from the single-family residences located south of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. A forklift and dozer are the two loudest pieces of off-road equipment that would operate during the construction of the onsite AWPF. Assuming these two pieces of construction equipment would operate at the same time, the nearest single-family residences would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 84 dBA and 83 dBA, respectively. However, as previously discussed, a wall would be constructed along the southern boundary of the proposed Headquarters-West Annex Site and existing District’s Headquarters property, which is expected to attenuate noise exposure levels at the nearest sensitive receptor by 10 dB during the remaining 21.5 months of construction, following wall installation. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the wall would reduce noise levels associated with AWPF construction activities to 74 dBA L max and 73 dBA L eq . Thus, residences near the AWPF construction areas would not be exposed to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Although construction of the wall would attenuate onsite construction noise levels to below the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq for the last 21.5 months of construction, the operation of off-road equipment during the construction of the AWPF and wall during the first 2.5 months of construction of the wall would expose nearby single-family residences that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Therefore, there would be a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan, which would attenuate construction noise levels by at least 5 dB. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan during the first 2.5 mouths of construction, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Headquarters-West Annex Site would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of 92 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, which would remain above the County’s daytime exterior noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Therefore, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Recharge Well Sites Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site The construction activities associated with the recharge and monitoring wells at the Willowbrook Lane Site would occur within unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance does not allow offensive noise (e.g., construction noise) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 75 dBA L eq or higher or offensive noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that exposes the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 60 dBA L eq or higher. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Construction activities at the Willowbrook Lane Site would consist of the installation of one recharge well, two monitoring wells, and pumps for recharge well and backwash, and backwash discharge. Construction equipment would include a concrete mixer truck, concrete saw, loader, backhoe, drill rig, forklift, diesel driven pump and crane; similar to construction activities for groundwater production wells. The construction of these facilities is expected to begin in Spring 2019 and take up to 180 days to complete. The recharge well would require 24-hour per day drilling for a period of approximately two-weeks. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptor to the Willowbrook Lane Site is the Santa Cruz Montessori school, which is located approximately 70 feet north of the Project site’s northern boundary. A forklift and dozer are the two loudest pieces of off-road equipment that would operate during construction of the wells. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the students and faculty at the Santa Cruz Montessori school would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 81 dBA and 80 dBA, respectively. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Willowbrook Lane site would be exposed to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime exterior noise standards of 75 dBA L eq . This would result in a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local standards. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. The loudest pieces of construction equipment that would operate at the Willowbrook Lane Site during the nighttime hours is a rotary drill rig and air compressor. Since classes held at the Santa Cruz Montessori school would not be in session during the nighttime hours, the nearest sensitive to the Project site during the nighttime hours would consist of single-family residence located 175 feet to the east and west of the Project site. As shown in Table 4.13-6, these single-family residences would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 71 dBA and 66 dBA, respectively, during nighttime drilling. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Willowbrook Lane site would be exposed to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s nighttime exterior noise standard of 60 dBA L eq . This would result in a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a and 4.13-1b would reduce construction noise exposure at nearby sensitive receptors by requiring the District to implement a Construction Noise Reduction Plan and by providing temporary hotel accommodations for all residences within 200 feet of the well sites during nighttime drilling activities, which is the approximate contour distance to the Santa Cruz County nighttime standard of 60 dBA L eq during on-site drilling activities. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would attenuate construction noise levels by at least 5 dB. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Willowbrook Lane Site would be expected to be exposed to a daytime noise level of 75 dBA L eq and a nighttime noise level of 61 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, which would remain above the County’s daytime and nighttime construction noise standards. Therefore, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites The construction activities associated with the recharge and monitoring wells at the Cabrillo College Sites would occur within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance does not allow offensive noise (e.g., construction noise) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 75 dBA or higher or offensive noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 60 dBA or higher. Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptor to the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site is the Delta Alternative High School, which is approximately 310 feet southeast of the site. The school operates during daytime hours, Monday through Friday (Delta, 2018). Accordingly, staff and students would not be at the school during nighttime hours. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the staff and students at the Delta Alternative High School would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 65 dBA and 64 dBA, respectively, during the daytime hours. The staff and students would not be exposed to construction noise levels exceeding the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard, there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptors to the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site that could be affected by onsite nighttime construction noise consist of single-family residences located approximately 1,000 feet east of the Project site. Only a rotary drill rig and compressor would be operating during the nighttime hours. As shown in Table 4.136, during the nighttime hours the nearest single-family residence to the Project site would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 52 dBA and 47 dBA, respectively. Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA L eq , there would be a less-thansignificant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptors to the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site is the Delta Alternative High School located approximately 510 feet from the Project site northwestern boundary. As previously discussed, the Delta Alternative High School would only be operational during the daytime hours. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the students and staff at the Delta Alternative High School would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 60 dBA and 59 dBA, respectively, during the daytime hours. The staff and students would not be exposed to construction noise levels exceeding the County’s daytime noise standard. Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration dBA L eq , there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. The closest sensitive receptors to the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site that could be affected by onsite nighttime construction noise consist of single-family residences are approximately 710 feet east of the Project site. Only a rotary drill rig and compressor would be operating during the nighttime hours. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the nearest single-family residence to the Project site would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 56 dBA and 51 dBA, respectively, during the nighttime hours. Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s nighttime noise standard of 60 dBA L eq , there would be a less-thansignificant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site The construction activities associated with the recharge and monitoring wells at the Twin Lakes Church Site would occur within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance does not allow offensive noise (e.g., construction noise) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. that would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 75 dBA L eq or higher or offensive noise between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. that would expose the nearest sensitive receptor to a noise level of 60 dBA L eq or higher. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. Construction activities at the Twin Lakes Church Site would include the same equipment and schedule already presented for the Willowbrook Lane Site and Cabrillo College Sites. The closest sensitive receptor to the Twin Lakes Church Site is the Twin Lakes Christian School, which is located approximately 235 feet west of the Project boundary. The school operates during daytime hours, Monday through Friday (TLCS, 2018). As shown in Table 4.13-6, the staff and students at the Twin Lake Christian School would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 68 dBA and 67 dBA, respectively, during the daytime hours. Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Project site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq , there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. Since staff and students at the Twin Lakes Christian School would not be present during nighttime hours, the staff and students would not be exposed to construction noise levels exceeding the County’s nighttime construction noise standard. The closest sensitive receptors to the Twin Lakes Church Site that could be affected by onsite nighttime construction noise consist of single-family residences located approximately 765 feet west of the Project site. Only a rotary drill rig and air compressor would be operating during the nighttime hours. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the nearest single-family residence to the Project site would be exposed to L max and L eq construction noise levels of 55 dBA and 50 dBA, respectively, during the nighttime hours. Since the nearest sensitive receptors to the Twin Lakes Church Site would not be expose to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s nighttime noise Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration standard of 60 dBA L eq , there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of residents to noise levels in excess of standards found in the local noise ordinance. Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. The construction activities associated with the recharge and monitoring wells at the Monterey Avenue Site would occur within the City of Capitola and would include the same equipment and activities described for the Willowbrook Lane Site. As described in Section 3.11.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 9.12.010(B) of the City of Capitola noise ordinance allows construction to occur between hours of 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Therefore, there would be a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local noise standards. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. Construction activities at the Monterey Avenue Site would require 24-hour drilling and would occur outside of the allowed hours specified in Section 9.12.010(B) of the City of Capitola noise ordinance. Since Project-related construction activities would conflict with the City of Capitola’s noise ordinance, construction of the recharge and monitoring wells at the Monterey Avenue Site would conflict with the City’s municipal code. Therefore, there would be a significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local noise standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a and 4.13-1b would reduce construction noise exposure at nearby sensitive receptors by requiring the District to implement a Construction Noise Reduction Plan and by providing temporary hotel accommodations for all residences within 200 feet of the well sites during nighttime drilling activities, which is the approximate contour distance to the Santa Cruz County’s noise ordinance nighttime standard of 60 dBA L eq during on-site drilling activities. Although the Monterey Avenue Site is not within the County of Santa Cruz, the County’s nighttime noise standard is used to determine which sensitive receptors should be offered hotel accommodations. However, since the construction activities would occur outside of the allowed construction hours specified in the City of Capitola noise ordinance, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Pipeline Alignments The majority of the pipelines would be installed in existing roadways using conventional cut and cover construction techniques. All streams, rivers, drainages, railroad crossings, and highways would be crossed using trenchless construction techniques such as jack and boring and/or drilling, or installing on bridges. Pipeline construction would be completed over an approximately 24- to 36-month period. All construction activities would occur during the daytime hours. An overview of the pipeline alignments is illustrated on Figure 3-1. Sensitive receptors along the pipeline alignments consist of single- and multi-family residences, Santa Cruz High School, Harbor High School, Soquel Elementary School, Twin Lakes Christian School, Capitola Library, Holy Cross Cemetery, Gault Elementary School, Seventh Day Adventist Church, Shore Life Community Church, Pitter-Patter Daycare, Santa Cruz Skilled Nursing Center, Kindred Healthcare Center, Pacific Coast Manor, United Methodist Church of Santa Cruz, Unity Temple Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration of Santa Cruz, and Live Oak Elementary School. Since most of these sensitive receptors are adjacent to the roadways where the pipelines would be installed, it is assumed for this impact analysis that the nearest sensitive receptors to construction activities along the pipeline alignments would be 25 feet, which is a representative and typical distance between roadways and structures placed near property boundaries, with sidewalks and some landscaping between. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. Construction equipment used during jacking boring and open trenching would include, but not be limited to, concrete saws, rollers, loaders, air compressors, backhoes, and excavators. As shown in Table 4.13-6, the sensitive receptors adjacent to the pipeline alignments would be exposed to noise levels of 91 dBA L max and 89 dBA L eq during jack and boring and/or drilling activities and 96 dBA L max and 91 dBA L eq during open trench construction activities. As shown on Figure 3-1, the pipeline alignments traverse multiple jurisdictions. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, the City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola noise ordinances have time-of-day restrictions for construction activities. Since construction of the pipelines is not proposed to occur outside of the allowed hours specified in the City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola noise ordinances, pipeline construction within these jurisdictions would not conflict with their respective municipal codes and, therefore, there would be no associated impact. As described in Section 4.13.3, Regulatory Framework, Section 8.30.010(C) of the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance has day and evening and nighttime noise standards of 75 dBA L eq and 60 dBA L eq , respectively, that are applicable to short-term construction activities. The closest sensitive receptor to the pipeline construction activities would be exposed to noise levels of up to 89 dBA during construction, which would exceed the County’s daytime noise ordinance standard. While pipeline installation would proceed at a rate of up to approximately 100 feet per day, limiting sensitive receptor exposure to a few days, the impact would, nevertheless, be significant with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. However, due to the very close proximity between Project construction areas and nearby sensitive receptors, it is unlikely that any construction noise reduction measures implemented under the Construction Noise Reduction Plan would reduce construction noise to below the County of Santa Cruz noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Therefore, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation. Impact Conclusion Project-related construction activities at the SC WWTF Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site (last 21.5 months of construction activities), Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites (i.e., both proposed north and south recharge well sites), and Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site would either occur within the allowed construction hours and/or below the allowed construction noise standards identified in their respective jurisdiction’s noise ordinance. Therefore, a less-thansignificant impact would occur at these sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration As previously discussed, construction activities at the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site (first 2.5 months of construction activities), Willowbrook Lane Site, and Pipeline Alignments would expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that would exceed the County of Santa Cruz construction noise standard. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a and Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b would attenuate construction noise levels by at least 5 dB; however, noise levels would not be reduced below the County of Santa Cruz construction noise standard. 2 In addition, construction activities at the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site would occur outside of the allowed hours specified in the City of Capitola noise ordinance due to 24-hour drilling. Therefore, a significant impact would occur at this sites. Even with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13-1a and 4.13-1b, Project construction activities wat these sites would continue to exceed the County of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola noise standards. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation would occur at these sites. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a: Construction Noise Reduction Plan. The District shall implement for the Chanticleer Site or Headquarters-West Annex Site (for the first 2.5 months of construction); the Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites; and pipeline alignment, as applicable, a Construction Noise Reduction Plan prior to initiating construction. A disturbance coordinator shall be designated for the Project to implement the provisions of the plan. At a minimum, the Construction Noise Reduction Plan shall implement the following measures: 2 • Distribute to the potentially affected residences and other sensitive receptors within 200 feet of the Project construction site boundaries a “hotline” telephone number, which shall be attended during active construction working hours, for use by the public to register complaints. The distribution shall identify a noise disturbance coordinator who would be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise complaints and institute actions warranted to correct the problem. All complaints shall be logged noting date, time, complainant’s name, nature of complaint, and any corrective action taken. The distribution shall also include the construction schedule. • All construction equipment shall have intake and exhaust mufflers recommended by the manufacturers thereof, to meet relevant noise limitations. • Maintain maximum physical separation, as far as practicable, between noise sources (construction equipment) and sensitive noise receptors. Separation may be achieved by locating stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community. • Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers) used during construction activities shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to inform and support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the selected sites would be known and the design could progress to a more advanced level. At that time, the District (or the District’s contractor) would prepare the Construction Noise Reduction Plan. As the Plan would be developed in response to site- and design-specific factors, to prepare the Plan before the final Project siting and design has been determined would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. • Use construction noise barriers such as paneled noise shields, blankets, and/or enclosures adjacent to noisy stationary and off-road equipment. Noise control shields, blankets and/or enclosures shall be made featuring a solid panel and a weatherprotected, sound-absorptive material on the construction-activity side of the noise shield. Mitigation Measure 4.13-1b: Off-site Accommodations for Substantially Affected Nighttime Receptors. The District shall provide temporary hotel accommodations for all residences within 200 feet of the Willowbrook Lane and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites during Project-related well drilling. The accommodations shall be provided for the duration of nighttime drilling activities. The District shall provide accommodations reasonably similar to those of the impacted residents in terms of number of beds and amenities. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable Impact. Impact 4.13-2: Project construction would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) As described in the Approach to Analysis discussion above, the 75 dBA L eq daytime and 60 dBA L eq nighttime exterior noise standards found in the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance are used to evaluate whether construction of the facilities and recharge wells would cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors near the Project sites. For this analysis, sensitive receptors located near construction areas that are exposed to noise levels exceeding 75 dBA L eq during the daytime hours and 60 dBA during the nighttime hours could experience an adverse reaction. Table 4.13-7 compares the highest Project construction-related L eq noise levels to which sensitive receptors could be exposed against the applicable temporary substantial increase in ambient noise threshold. Potential AWPF Sites SC WWTF Site The sensitive receptors closest to the SC WWTF Site consist of single-family residences located approximately 520 feet south of the SC WWTF Site. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the SC WTF Site would only occur during the daytime hours. Consequently, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-7 SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS COMPARED TO THE APPLIED TEMPORARY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE OVER AMBIENT NOISE THRESHOLD Project Component Loudest two Pieces of Construction Equipment Distance to nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet) Attenuated Noise Level (dBA L eq )1, 2 Applied Day/Night Threshold (dBA L eq ) Exceed Applied Threshold (yes or no)? Potential AWPF sites SC WWTF Site Forklift, Dozer 520 59 75 No Chanticleer Site Forklift, Dozer 50 84 75 Yes Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF and Wall Construction Auger Drill Rig, Excavator 10 97 75 Yes Headquarters-West Annex Site AWPF after wall constructed Forklift, Dozer 55 733 75 No Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site – Daytime Hours Forklift, Concrete Saw 70 80 75 Yes Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Hours Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 175 66 60 Yes Cabrillo North Recharge Well Site – Daytime Hours Forklift, Concrete Saw 310 64 75 No Cabrillo North Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Hours Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 1,000 47 60 No Cabrillo South Recharge Well Site – Forklift, Daytime Hours Concrete Saw 510 59 75 No Cabrillo South Recharge Well Site – Rotary Drill Rig, Nighttime Hours Air Compressor 710 51 60 No Twin Lakes Church Well Site – Daytime Hours Forklift, Concrete Saw 235 67 75 No Twin Lakes Church Well Site – Nighttime Hours Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 765 50 60 No Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site – Daytime Hours Forklift, Concrete Saw 25 90 75 Yes Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site – Nighttime Hours Rotary Drill Rig, Air Compressor 25 86 60 Yes Jack and Boring and/or Drilling Sites Concrete Mixer Truck, Auger Drill Rig 25 89 75 Yes Open Trench Site Concrete Saw and Excavator 25 91 75 Yes Recharge Well Sites Pipeline Installations NOTES: 1 Reference construction equipment noise levels were obtained from Caltrans’ Roadway Construction Noise Level (RCNM) 2 Assumed an attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance (i.e., soft site). 3 A wall would be construction along the southern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site, which would attenuate onsite construction noise by 10 dB. SOURCE: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January 2006. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the nearest residences would be exposed to noise levels of 59 dBA L eq during Project construction, below the applied 75 dBA L eq daytime temporary substantial noise increase threshold. Therefore, there would be a less-thansignificant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels at residences in the vicinity of the SC WWTF Site. Chanticleer Site Sensitive receptors closest to the Chanticleer Site consists of multi-family residences within 50 feet southwest of the Chanticleer Site. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Chanticleer Site would only occur during the daytime hours. Consequently, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, residences near the Chanticleer Site would be exposed to noise levels of 84 dBA L eq during Project construction, above the applied 75 dBA L eq temporary substantial ambient noise increase threshold. This would be a significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels at residences in the vicinity of the Chanticleer Site. As discussed for Impact 4.13-1, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by at least 5 dB through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Chanticleer Site would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of 79 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, above the applied substantial noise increase threshold. Therefore, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Headquarters-West Annex Site The sensitive receptors nearest to the Headquarters-West Annex Site consists of single-family residences within 55 feet southwest of the Project site. Construction of the Headquarters-West Annex Site would only occur during the daytime hours. Consequently, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, the first 2.5 months of construction would consist of the construction of the AWPF and a wall along the southern boundary of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Once the wall is constructed, construction of the AWPF would continue for the remainder of the construction period (i.e., 21.5 months). Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the AWPF and wall would expose single family residences located south of the wall to noise levels that would exceed the applied 75 dBA L eq temporary substantial noise increase threshold. However, once the wall is construction, noise generated during the construction of the AWPF is expected to attenuate noise exposure levels at the nearest sensitive receptor by 10 dB during the last 21.5 months of construction. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the wall would reduce noise levels associated with AWPF construction activities to 73 dBA L eq . Residences near the AWPF Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration construction areas, after the construction of the wall, would not be exposed to construction noise levels that would exceed the County’s daytime noise standard of 75 dBA L eq . Although noise generated during the last 21.5 months of construction activities would not expose the nearest single-family residences to noise levels that would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase, the operation of off-road construction equipment used during the first 2.5 months of construction would expose nearby single-family residences to noise levels south of that would be considered a substantially increase over the existing ambient. As shown in Table 4.13-7, construction of the wall would expose the nearest single-family residences to a noise level of 97 dBA L eq , above the applied 75 dBA L eq temporary substantial noise increase threshold. This would be a significant impact with respect to temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels at the residences in the vicinity of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by at least 5 dB through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Headquarters-West Annex Site would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of 92 dBA L eq during the construction of the wall, which would remain above the applied substantial ambient noise increase threshold. Therefore, this impact would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Recharge and Monitoring Well Sites Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site The closest sensitive receptor to the Willowbrook Lane Site is the Santa Cruz Montessori school, which is located approximately 70 feet from the Project site’s northern boundary. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site requires 24-hour drilling. Since construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime and/or 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, onsite construction activities could expose offsite sensitive receptors to a daytime noise level of 80 dBA L eq . Since onsite construction activities would exceed the applied daytime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, construction noise would result in a significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Willowbrook Lane Site. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, onsite construction and well drilling activities could expose offsite sensitive receptors to a noise level of 66 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Since onsite construction activities would exceed the applied nighttime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, construction noise would result in a significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Willowbrook Lane Site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by at least 5 dB through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Willowbrook Lane Site Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of up to 75 dBA L eq during the daytime hours and 61 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours, which would exceed the applied daytime and nighttime substantial ambient noise increase thresholds. Therefore, this impact on nearby sensitive receptors would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. Cabrillo College Drive Recharge Well Sites Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site. The closest sensitive receptor to the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site is the Delta Alternative High School, which is approximately 310 feet southeast of the site. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site requires 24-hour drilling. Since construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime and/or 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 64 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Since onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied daytime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 47 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Since onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied nighttime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Cabrillo College North Recharge Well Site. Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site. The closest sensitive receptors to the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site is the Delta Alternative High School located approximately 510 feet of the Project sites north-western boundary. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site requires 24-hour drilling. Since construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime and/or 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 59 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Since onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied daytime or nighttime temporary substantial noise increase thresholds, this would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 51 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Since Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied nighttime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Cabrillo College South Recharge Well Site. Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site The closest sensitive receptor to the Twin Lakes Church Site is the Twin Lakes Christian School, which is located approximately 235 feet west of the Project boundary. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site requires 24-hour drilling. Since construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime and/or 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 67 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Since onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied daytime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Twin Lakes Church Site. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 50 dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Since onsite construction activities would not exceed the applied nighttime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to a temporary substantial increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Twin Lakes Church Site. Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site The closest sensitive receptor to the Monterey Avenue Site consists of a single family residences locations within 25 feet of the Monterey Avenue Site’s western boundary. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site requires 24-hour drilling. Since construction activities would occur over 24-hour periods, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq during the daytime and/or 60 dBA L eq during the nighttime would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of 90 dBA L eq during the daytime hours. Since onsite construction activities would exceed the applied daytime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would be a significant impact on the residences in the vicinity of the Monterey Avenue Site. Nighttime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, sensitive receptors near the Project site would be expose to noise levels of dBA L eq during the nighttime hours. Since onsite construction activities would exceed the applied daytime or nighttime temporary substantial noise increase threshold, this would be a significant impact on the residences in the vicinity of the Monterey Avenue Site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by at least 5 dB through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site would be expected to be exposed to a noise level of 85 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, which would be above the applied substantial ambient noise increase threshold. Therefore, this would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Pipeline Alignments Since most of these sensitive receptors are adjacent to the roadways where the pipelines would be installed, it is assumed for this impact analysis that the nearest sensitive receptors to construction activities along the pipeline alignments would be at distances of 25 feet. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-1, construction of the Pipeline Alignments would only occur during the daytime hours. Consequently, noise generated by onsite construction activities that exceed 75 dBA L eq would be considered a temporary substantial noise increase. Daytime Construction Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-7, the sensitive receptors near the Pipeline Alignments would be exposed to noise levels as high as 91 dBA L eq during open trench construction activities, which would be above the applied daytime 75 dBA L eq temporary substantial ambient noise increase threshold. This would be a significant impact on sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the Pipeline Alignments. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would reduce construction noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors by at least 5 dB through implementation of a Construction Noise Reduction Plan. After implementation of all the measures identified in the Construction Noise Reduction Plan, the nearest sensitive receptors to the Pipeline Alignments would be expected to be exposed to noise levels as high as of 86 dBA L eq during onsite construction activities, which would remain above the applied substantial ambient noise increase threshold. Therefore, this would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with mitigation. Impact Conclusion Project construction activities would expose sensitive receptors near the SC WWTF Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site (last 21.5 months of construction activities), Cabrillo College Recharge Well Sites (i.e., both proposed north and south recharge well sites), and Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well Site to noise levels that would not exceed the applied daytime and nighttime substantial temporary substantial ambient noise increase thresholds. Therefore, a lessthan-significant impact would occur at these sites. Due to the close proximity between nearby sensitive receptors and the construction areas at the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site (first 2.5 months of construction activities), Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, and Pipeline Alignments, the noise reductions from Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a would not be expected to reduce construction noise levels to below either the applied daytime or nighttime substantial temporary ambient noise increase threshold. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact would occur at these sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measure Implement Mitigation Measure 4.13-1a. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. _________________________ Impact 4.13-3: Operation of the Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. (Less than Significant) Operational activities associated with the water treatment facilities, recharge and monitoring wells, and pump stations could result in the exposure of nearby off-site sensitive receptors to noise levels that could exceed local noise standards. The primary noise source associated with Project operation would be the onsite pumps. As previously noted, under the Project, the pumps at the AWPF sites would be fully enclosed and would operate during both daytime and nighttime hours, while the recharge well backwash and backwash tank pumps at the recharge well sites would be fully submerged in water and would only operate for three hours once every three months during daytime hours. As described in Section 3.5.3, Recharge and Monitoring Wells, the recharge well back flush pumps would have a power rating of approximately 70 to 100 horsepower (HP) at 1,800 to 3,600 revolutions per minute (RPM), and would be fully submersed in water at depth of approximately 100 feet below ground level. The backwash tank pumps would have power rating of approximately 15 HP at 1,700 RMP and would be fully submersed in water within a concrete tank at a depth of 8 to 12 feet below ground level. Since both the recharge well backwash and backwash tank pumps would be fully submerged in water and would be located under densely compacted soil, it is not expected that noise generate by these pumps would audible at the ground level. For these reasons, operational noise generated by proposed recharge well sites are not discussed further. Table 4.13-8 presents the maximum L eq Project-related noise levels that sensitive receptors could be exposed to during the operation of stationary noise sources at the facilities. A summary of impact per Project component is provided below. Pipeline operations would not generate noise and therefore are not discussed further in this impact. Potential AWPF Sites SC WWTF Site The SC WWTF Site is within the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Cruz. The primary stationary noise sources associated with the AWPF at the Santa Cruz WWTF site include an effluent pump station. As shown in Table 4.13-8, the nearest sensitive receptor to the SC WWTF Site could be exposed to a maximum noise level of 12 dBA L eq during Project operation. Since the City of Santa Cruz general plan and noise ordinance do not contain any stationary noise standards, there would be no impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of local general plan standards or ordinances. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-37 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-8 SUMMARY OF OPERATIONAL NOISE EXPOSURE AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS LOCATIONS – STATIONARY SOURCES Project Facility Loudest Noise Source Pump Noise Level at 50 feet (dBA L eq )1 Distance to nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet)2 Attenuated Noise Level (dBA L eq )3 Potential AWPF Sites and Pump Station Sites SC WWTF Site One Effluent Pump Station 62 520 12 Chanticleer Site One Purified Water Pump Station 62 80 32 Headquarters-West Annex Site One Purified Water Pump Station 62 165 24 NOTES: 1 As noted in Section 3.5.2, Conveyance System, the pumps would have a power rating of approximately 15 HP at 1,700 RPM. 2 Measured distance from the nearest sensitive receptor to the Project site to the proposed onsite pump station location. 3 Assumed an attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance (i.e., soft site). The pumps at the AWPF sites would be fully enclosed. It is assumed that the pumps that would be enclosed or submerged in water would result in an interior to exterior attenuation of 25 dB. SOURCE: FTA, May 2006; Brown and Caldwell, 2018. Pure Water Soquel – Conceptual Site Plans for Advanced Water Purification Facilities and Recharge Wells. March 30, 2018. Dies, 2009. Engineering Noise Control Theory and Practice. 2009. Chanticleer Site The Chanticleer Site is within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. The primary stationary noise sources associated with the AWPF at the Chanticleer Site would be one purified water pump station. Since the proposed pumps would operate 24-hours a day, operational pump noise were compared to County’s daytime and nighttime stationary noise standard of 50 dBA L eq and 45 dBA L eq , respectively. Daytime Operational Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-8, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Chanticleer Site could be exposed to a noise level of 32 dBA L eq during Project operation, which would not exceed the County’s daytime stationary noise standard of 50 dBA L eq . Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of the local general plan standards. Daytime Operational Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-8, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Chanticleer Site could be exposed to a noise level of 32 dBA L eq during Project operation, which would not exceed the County’s nighttime stationary noise standard of 45 dBA L eq . Therefore, there would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of the local general plan standards. Headquarters-West Annex Site The Headquarters-West Annex Site is within an unincorporated area of Santa Cruz County. The primary stationary noise sources associated with the AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex Site would be one purified water pump station. Since the proposed pumps would operate 24-hours a day, operational pump noise were compared to County’s daytime and nighttime stationary noise standard of 50 dBA L eq and 45 dBA L eq , respectively. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-38 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration Daytime Operational Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-8, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Headquarters-West Annex Site could be exposed to a noise level of 32 dBA L eq during Project operation. The Project includes installation of a wall along the southern boundary of the site, sufficient to block line-of-sight between the proposed onsite purified water pump station from adjacent parcels. The wall would provide an attenuation in noise levels of at least 10 dB. Therefore, the nearest receptors would be exposed to a noise level of 22 dBA L eq during Project operation, which would be below the County’s daytime stationary noise standard. There would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of the local general plan standards. Nighttime Operational Noise Impacts. As shown in Table 4.13-8, the nearest sensitive receptor to the Headquarters-West Annex Site could be exposed to a noise level of 32 dBA L eq during Project operation. As previously discussed, a wall would be construction along the Project site’s southern boundary, which would attenuate operational noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptor to 22 dBA L eq . Since operational noise levels would be below the County’s nighttime stationary noise standard. There would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of the local general plan standards. Impact Conclusion As previously discussed, the recharge well backwash and backwash tank pumps at the proposed recharge well sites would be fully submerged in water and would be located under densely compacted soil. Since noise generated by these pumps are not anticipated to be audible at ground level, noise generated by these pumps are not anticipated to expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that would result in a less-than-significant impact. As discussed above and shown in Table 3.14-8, noise generate during the operation of the onsite pump stations at the AWPF Sites would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that exceed the County of Santa Cruz’s daytime or nighttime noise standards. Therefore, a less-thansignificant impact would occur at these sites. Mitigation: None Required. Impact 4.13-4: Project construction could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Human annoyance and building damage are typically the primary issues concerning temporary construction impacts from vibration. Construction activities that typically result in temporary vibration impacts include impact pile driving, the use of large bulldozers, loaded trucks, and auger drills. Impact pile driving is not proposed for any of the Project components. For adverse human reaction, the analysis applies the “severe” threshold of 0.4 in/sec PPV for continuous/frequent intermittent sources. According to the Caltrans’ Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, continuous/frequent intermittent sources include compactors and vibratory compaction equipment (Caltrans, 2013b). For risk of architectural damage to historic Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-39 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration buildings and structures, the analysis applies a threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV (Caltrans, 2013b). A threshold of 0.3 in/sec PPV is used to assess damage risk for all other buildings. A discussion of temporary vibration impacts by Project component is provided below. For purposes of this impact discussion, sensitive receptors include both people and structures. As discussed further in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are previously recorded historic buildings, primarily woodframed residences, immediately adjacent to the proposed pipeline alignments. The location and distance of these structures from Project roadways are listed in Table 4.13-9. There are no historic buildings in the vicinity of the AWPF and recharge well sites. SC WWTF, Chanticleer, and Headquarters-West Annex AWPF Sites Construction of the facilities at the AWPF sites would require the use of loaded trucks to transport material to and from the Project sites. As shown in Table 4.13-10, the nearest sensitive receptor to any of the AWPF sites would be exposed to a vibration level as high as approximately 0.03 in/sec PPV, which would be below the applied human annoyance and non-historic building thresholds of 0.4 and 0.3 in/sec PPV, respectively. This would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons and structures to construction-related vibration levels near the AWPF sites that would be considered strongly perceptible or result in building damage. Willowbrook Lane, Cabrillo College, Twin Lakes Church, and Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Sites Construction of the recharge well sites would require 24-hour drilling for a two-week period. As shown in Table 4.13-10, the nearest sensitive receptor to the recharge well sites would be exposed to a vibration level as high as approximately 0.09 in/sec PPV, which would be below the applied human annoyance and non-historic building damage thresholds of 0.4 and 0.3 in/sec PPV, respectively. This would result in a less-than-significant impact with respect to exposure of persons and structures to construction-related vibration levels that would be considered strongly perceptible or result in building damage. Pipelines Construction of the pipelines would require the use of a vibratory rollers during soil compaction. As shown in Table 4.13-10, the nearest sensitive receptors to the pipeline alignments would be exposed to a vibration level as high as approximately 0.210 in/sec PPV, which would exceed the applied human annoyance threshold of 0.4 in/sec PPV. Given the relatively minimal building setbacks from the street curbs (which range anywhere from 8 to 100 feet), and that the pipeline could be installed anywhere within the road rights-of-way, the use of vibratory rollers during pipeline construction could cause cosmetic or structural damage to historic buildings. Vibratory rollers operating within 22 feet of a historic building could result in building damage. There are up to 18 buildings that could be located within 22 feet of where vibration rollers would operate during pipeline construction (see Table 4.13-9). Cosmetic or structural damage to historic buildings could result in a substantial adverse change in their historical status, which would be a significant impact to historical resources. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.13-4, this impact would be reduced to a less-thansignificant level by ensuring that vibration generated during pipeline construction does not exceed the applied 0.25 in/sec PPV historic building damage threshold. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-40 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-9 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED HISTORIC BUILDINGS ALONG THE PIPELINE ALTERNATIVES Distance from Right of Way Address Type/Name Listing 241 California Street Craftsman Local Inventory 43 500 California Street Bias House Local Inventory 58 504 California Street Craftsman Bungalow Local Inventory 50 516 California Street Craftsman Duplex Local Inventory 27 35 Front Street Otto's Local Inventory 18 80 Front Street Sunshine Villa Local Inventory 20 603 Third Street Ferris-Whitcomb House Local Inventory 26 611 Third Street Rio Vista Local Inventory 26 714 Third Street Craftsman Bungalow Local Inventory 12 915 Third Street Green Gables Local Inventory 22 919 Third Street Eben Bennett House Local Inventory 16 924 Third Street Golden Gate Villa National Register 18 1005 Third Street Stick-Eastlake Local Inventory 18 1012 Third Street Bowman House Local Inventory 24 1017 Third Street Victorian English Cottage Local Inventory 27 229 Laurel Street Foster's Freeze Local Inventory 9 305 Laurel Street Colonial Revival Local Inventory 25 309 Laurel Street Colonial Revival Local Inventory 25 311 Laurel Street Colonial Revival Local Inventory 14 319 Laurel Street Four Palms Apartments City Landmark 19 510 Laurel Street Vernacular Local Inventory 17 807 Laurel Street Hale House Local Inventory 8 417 Broadway Vernacular Local Inventory 35 423 Broadway Bowman House Local Inventory 22 511 Broadway Vernacular Local Inventory 18 518 Broadway Stick-Eastlake Local Inventory 38 700 Broadway New Broadway Apartments Local Inventory 18 817 Broadway Colonial Revival Local Inventory 32 901 Broadway Stick-Eastlake Local Inventory 21 1025 Broadway Queen Anne-Colonial Revival Local Inventory 20 1108 Broadway Eastlake Local Inventory 29 1111 Broadway Eastlake Local Inventory 23 1114 Broadway Eastlake Local Inventory 30 1124 Broadway Vernacular Local Inventory 20 1205 Broadway Brown House Local Inventory 32 1215 Broadway Vernacular Local Inventory 34 1408 Broadway Eastlake Local Inventory 39 515 Frederick Street Star of the Sea Church Local Inventory 44 4670 Capitola Road Vernacular - Hillcrest Motel Local Inventory 65 2200 Wharf Road Spanish Colonial - Rispin Mansion National Register 100 Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-41 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration TABLE 4.13-10 SUMMARY OF VIBRATION LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS DURING CONSTRUCTION Highest Vibration Source PPV a 25 feet (inch/second)1 Distance to nearest Sensitive Receptor (feet) Attenuated Vibration Level (PPV inch/second) SC WWTF Site Loaded Trucks 0.076 520 0.001 Chanticleer Site Loaded Trucks 0.076 50 0.027 Headquarters-West Annex Site Loaded Trucks 0.076 55 0.024 Willowbrook Lane Recharge Site Auger Drill 0.089 70 0.02 Cabrillo North Recharge Sites Auger Drill 0.089 310 0.002 Cabrillo South Recharge Sites Auger Drill 0.089 510 0.001 Twin Lakes Church Site Auger Drill 0.089 235 0.003 Monterey Avenue Site Auger Drill 0.089 25 0.089 Vibratory Roller 0.210 22 - 25 0.254-0.210 Project Facility Potential AWPF Sites Recharge Well Sites Pipelines SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06). May 2006. Mitigation Measure 4.13-4: Vibration Monitoring for Pipeline Installation in the Vicinity of Historic Buildings. The District shall construct the pipeline as close as possible to the centerlines of the road right-of-way to reduce indirect impacts from construction vibration to below the 0.25 in/sec PPV threshold. If the District determines that pipelines cannot be located near the centerline of the street due to traffic concerns or existing utilities, the historical resources identified in Table 4.13-9, shall be monitored for vibration during pipeline construction, especially during the use of vibratory rollers. If construction vibration levels exceed 0.20 in/sec PPV (which is below the historic building damage threshold of 0.4 in/sec PPV), construction shall be halted and other feasible construction methods shall be employed to reduce the vibration levels below the damage threshold. Alternative construction methods may include using concrete saws instead of jackhammers or hoe-rams to open excavation trenches, the use of non-vibratory rollers, and hand excavation, or other equally effective means. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant Impact. Impact 4.13-5: The Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. (Less than Significant) As described in the Approach to Analysis discussion above, this evaluation uses a 5 dB increase in noise exposure, which is considered a readily perceptible increase in noise levels (Caltrans, 2013a), to assess the significance of operational noise increases in ambient noise. That is, a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-42 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration significant impact would occur if the Project caused an increase in noise levels of 5 dB or greater, relative to ambient noise levels. Operational activities associated with the treatment facilities and pump stations, and recharge wells could increase the existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project sites. Noise sources associated with the Project would be primarily stationary, such as pumps. As previously noted, under the Project, the pumps at the AWPF sites would be fully enclosed and would operate during both daytime and nighttime hours, while the backwash discharge pump at the recharge well sites would be fully submerged in water and would only operate for three hours once every three months during daytime hours. As previously discussed under Impact 4.13-3, the recharge well back flush and backwash tank pumps proposed at the recharge well sites are anticipated to be fully submerged in water and would be located under densely compacted soil. It is not expected that noise generate by these pumps would audible at the ground level. For these reasons, operational noise generated by proposed recharge well sites are not discussed further. Table 4.13-11 presents the noise levels associated with proposed stationary noise sources, ambient noise levels, and estimated ambient-plus-Project noise levels at each of the Project sites. A summary of impact per Project component is provided below. TABLE 4.13-11 OPERATIONAL STATIONARY NOISE SOURCES INCREASE OF OVER AMBIENT Project Component Loudest Noise Source Attenuated Noise Levels (dBA L eq )1 Attenuated Noise Levels (dBA L dn )2 Ambient (dBA L dn )3 Project plus Ambient (dBA L dn ) Increase Over Ambient (dB) Potential AWPF Sites Santa Cruz WWTF Site One Effluent Pump Station 12 18 65 65 0 Chanticleer Site One Purified Water Pump Station 32 38 58 58 0 Headquarters-West Annex Site One Purified Water Pump Station 24 30 56 56 0 NOTES: 1 The pumps are assumed have a power rating of 15 HP and operate at 1,700 RPM. Assumed an attenuation rate of 7.5 dB per doubling of distance (i.e., soft site). The pumps at the AWPF sites would be fully enclosed. The pumps enclosed are assumed to result in an interior to exterior attenuation of 25 dB. 2 The pumps stations at the AWPF sites would operate 24-hours a day. 3 Measured ambient noise levels at the AWFP and recharge and monitoring well sites were obtained from a baseline noise survey conducted on January 31, 2018. SOURCE: FTA, May 2006; Brown and Caldwell, 2018. Pure Water Soquel – Conceptual Site Plans for Advanced Water Purification Facilities and Recharge Wells. March 30, 2018. Dies, 2009. Engineering Noise Control Theory and Practice. 2009. Potential AWPF Sites SC WWTF Site The primary stationary noise sources associated with Project operations at the SC WWTF Site would be from the onsite effluent pump station. As previously discussed, the nearest sensitive Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-43 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4.Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration receptors to the SC WWTF consist of single-family residences approximately 520 feet from the onsite effluent pump station. Based on the noise survey conducted from January 31, 2018 to February 2, 2018, the existing ambient noise level at these sensitive receptors is 65 dBA L dn (see LT-5 in Table 4.13-2). As shown in Table 4.13-11, the operation of the on-site pumps would result in existing ambient of 65 dBA L dn ; and would not increase existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the SC WWTF Site would not be exposed to operational noise that would exceed the applied 5-dB substantial increase threshold. This would be a less-thansignificant impact with respect to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the SC WWTF. Chanticleer Site The primary stationary noise sources associated with Project operations at the Chanticleer Site would be from an onsite purified water pump station. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Chanticleer Site consist of single-family residences approximately 80 feet to the east of the onsite pump station. Based on the noise survey conducted from January 31, 2018 to February 2, 2018, the existing ambient noise level at these sensitive receptors is 58 dBA L dn (see LT-4 in Table 4.13-2). As shown in Table 4.13-11, the operation of the on-site pumps would increase the existing ambient at these sensitive receptors to 58 dBA L dn ; and would not increase existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Chanticleer Site would not be exposed to operational noise that would exceed the applied 5-dB substantial increase threshold. This would be a less-thansignificant impact with respect to substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Chanticleer Site. Headquarters-West Annex Site Headquarters- West Annex Site The primary stationary noise sources associated with Project operations at the Headquarters-West Annex Site would be from an onsite purified water pump station. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Headquarters-West Annex Site consist of single-family residences approximately 165 feet to the south-east of the onsite purified water pump station. Based on a noise survey conducted from January 31, 2018 to February 2, 2018, the existing ambient noise level at these sensitive receptors is 56 dBA L dn (see LT-3 in Table 4.13-2). As shown in Table 4.13-11, the operation of the on-site pumps could increase the existing ambient at these sensitive receptors to 56 dBA L dn ; and would not increase existing ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project site. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Headquarters-West Annex Site would not be exposed to operational noise that would exceed the applied 5-dB substantial increase threshold. This would be a less-than-significant impact with respect to substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Headquarters-West Annex Site. Impact Conclusion The recharge well backwash and backwash tank pumps at the proposed recharge well sites would be fully submerged in water and would be located under densely compacted soil. Since noise Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-44 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.13 Noise and Vibration generated by these pumps are not anticipated to be audible at ground level, noise generated by these pumps are not anticipated to expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that would result in a less-than-significant impact. As discussed above and shown in Table 3.14-11, noise generate during the operation of the onsite pump stations at the AWPF Sites would not expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that would elevated existing ambient noise levels above the applied 5 dB substantial increase threshold. Therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur at these sites. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.13.5 References – Noise and Vibration Brown and Caldwell, 2018. Pure Water Soquel – Conceptual Site Plans for Advanced Water Purification Facilities and Recharge Wells. March 30, 2018. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013. Caltrans, 2013b. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September 2013. City of Capitola, 2014. Capitola General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2014. City of Santa Cruz, 2012. City of Santa Cruz 2030 General Plan. Adopted June 2012. County of Santa Cruz, 1994. Chapter 6: Public Safety and Noise of the County of Santa Cruz General Plan. May 24, 1994. Delta High School, 2018. Bell Schedule. Available at http://www.deltaschool.org/calendar.html. Accessed on May 21, 2018. Dies, 2009. Engineering Noise Control Theory and Practice. 2009. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. January 2006. Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA-VA-90-1003-06). May 2006. State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2017. General Plan Guidelines. Twin Lakes Christian School (TLCS), 2018. Twin Lakes Christian Middle School Daily Schedule. Available at https://www.tlcs.us/calendar. Accessed on May 21, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.13-45 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing 4.14 Population and Housing 4.14.1 Introduction This section describes the existing population and housing characteristics and trends within local jurisdictions affected by the Project components. This section analyzes the potential for implementation of the Project to result in direct and/or indirect impacts on population and housing, including those associated with the workforce required to support Project construction and operations. The analysis in this section is based on a review of population and housing estimates in the 20122016 American Community Survey, 2010 U.S. Census population and housing estimates, housing and population projections from the California Department of Finance (DOF), housing and population projections developed by the Association for Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), employment data and estimates from the California Employment Development Department (EDD), and estimates of temporary and permanent employees anticipated for construction and operation of the Project. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Population and Housing generally concern Project impacts on the availability of housing as well as housing needs for out-of-county workers. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.14.2 Environmental Setting The study area for the evaluation of effects related to population and housing includes local jurisdictions within which the Project components would be located, as well as the service areas of Soquel Creek Water District. These are the jurisdictions within which potential population and housing effects of the Project would be most likely to occur. The Project includes components within the cities of Santa Cruz, and Capitola; and in the communities of Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. The water district service area includes portions of the City of Capitola, as well as the unincorporated communities of Aptos CDP, La Selva Beach, Opal Cliffs (Pleasure Point CDP), Rio del Mar CDP, Seascape, and Soquel CDP. Population and housing data are not readily available for unincorporated sub-county areas for each topic of analysis. Therefore, the analysis includes data for Santa Cruz County as a whole. Population, Housing and Labor Force Santa Cruz County has four incorporated cities – Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley, and Watsonville. The total population of the county in 2016 was 275,557. Approximately 49.3 percent of the county’s population (135,910) lives in unincorporated areas (DOF, 2017). The Project could potentially impact communities where Project components are located, such as the incorporated cities of Santa Cruz, and Capitola as well as the unincorporated communities of Aptos, Soquel, and Live Oak. In addition, the Project has the potential to impact communities included in the Soquel Creek Water District service area. Table 4.14-1 shows recent changes in population, housing, and labor force for jurisdictions and communities that could be affected by Project implementation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing TABLE 4.14-1 POPULATION, HOUSING, AND LABOR FORCE IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Population Jurisdiction City of Santa Cruz (city)* Housing Units Labor Forcec 2010a 2016b 2010a 2016b 2010c 2016c 59,946 63,310 23,316 23,693 32,532 34,264 City of Capitola* + 9,918 10,109 5,534 5,544 5,716 5,720 City of Watsonville 51,199 52,915 14,089 14,159 24,055 25,130 City of Scotts Valley 11,580 11,824 4,610 4,308 5,796 6,126 129,739 136,193 56,927d 57,411d Not Available Not Available Unincorporated Santa Cruz County Aptos CDP*+ 6,220 5,842 6,711 2,521 3,525 3,319 Soquel CDP*+ 9,644 10,912 4,107 4,217 4,899 5,851 La Selva Beach CDP + 2,843 2,663 1,376 1,429 1,376 1,293 Pleasure Point CDP + 5,846 6,155 3,091 3,113 3,092 3,550 Rio del Mar CDP + 9,216 9,731 4,924 5,122 4,518 5,040 Seacliff CDP + 3,267 3,364 1,923 1,959 1,614 1,814 Live Oak CDP* Santa Cruz County (Total)* 17,158 17,749 6,726 6,794 8,648 9,838 262,382 270,931 104,476 105,255 137,888 142,567 NOTES: * Jurisdictions which contain Project sites + Communities within the SqCWD service area a Population and housing data for 2010 are from the U.S. Census Bureau’s decennial census. b Population and housing data for 2016 are estimates prepared by the American Community Survey 2012-2016 Estimates c Labor force data for 2010 and 2016 are estimates prepared by the US Census American Community Survey, 2012-2016 Estimates; labor force refers to people who live in the area who are employed or looking for work, regardless of where they actually work. d Estimations of housing units for unincorporated Santa Cruz County were taken from Department of Finance Estimations SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a; 2016b; 2016c;.US Census Bureau 2010a; US Census Bureau 2010b County of Santa Cruz In January 2017, Santa Cruz County was home to approximately 276,603 residents and had approximately 105,501 housing units (DOF, 2017). Between 2010 and 2016, the total population of Santa Cruz County increased by about 3.3 percent, and the total number of housing units increased by about 0.7 percent (U.S. Census, 2016b; 2010b). As shown in Table 4.14-2, the California DOF estimates that the population of Santa Cruz County will exceed 280,000 by 2019 (DOF, 2018). The County’s population is anticipated to grow approximately 0.6-0.8 percent annually over the next decade, and is expected to increase by a total of 12 percent from 20152040 (AMBAG, 2018). Similarly, the County is expected to experience a 12 percent increase in housing units from 2015-2040, reaching an estimated 118,152 housing units by 2040 (AMBAG, 2018). The unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz contain the greatest portion of the County’s housing units with approximately 57,327 total housing units followed by the City of Santa Cruz which has 23,693 housing units. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) assigns each jurisdiction within Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties a share of the regional housing allocation, or the amount of housing the jurisdiction must plan for, in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the last RHNA, AMBAG assigned Santa Cruz County 3,044 total units, including: 734 Very Low Income units, 480 Low Income Units, 554 Moderate Units, and 1,276 Above Moderate Units (AMBAG, 2014). The portion of the allocation assigned Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing to unincorporated Santa Cruz County totals 1,314 units, including 317 Very Low Income Units, 207 Low Income Units, 239 Moderate Units, and 551 Above-Moderate Units (AMBAG, 2014). TABLE 4.14-2 PROJECTED POPULATION IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Projected Population Growth Jurisdiction 2015 2020 2030 2040 City of Santa Cruz (city)* 63,830 68,381 75,571 82,266 City of Capitola* 10,087 10,194 10,451 10,809 City of Watsonville 52,562 52,536 56,829 59,743 City of Scotts Valley 12,073 12,145 12,282 12,418 Unincorporated Area* 135,042 136,891 139,105 141,645 Santa Cruz County Total* 273,594 281,147 294,238 306,881 NOTES: Project population data were not available for CDP; therefore, the estimate for the unincorporated area of the county is used here. * Jurisdictions which contain Project sites SOURCE: AMBAG, 2018 City of Santa Cruz In January 2017, the City of Santa Cruz had an estimated population of approximately 65,070 residents and approximately 23,693 housing units (DOF, 2017). Based on AMBAG projections, the population of Santa Cruz is estimated to exceed 70,000 between 2020 and 2025. The City’s population is expected to continue growing, reaching 82,266 by 2040, a 29 percent increase from 2015 (AMBAG, 2018). The City of Santa Cruz is also expected to experience a 28 percent increase in housing units between 2015 and 2040, reaching an estimated 30,167 housing units by 2040 (AMBAG, 2018). In the 2014-2023 RHNA, Santa Cruz was assigned a total of 747 units, including 180 Very Low Income Units, 118 Low Income Units, 136 Moderate Units, and 313 Above-Moderate Units (AMBAG, 2014). City of Capitola In January 2017, the City of Capitola was home to approximately 10,162 residents and included approximately 5,544 housing units (DOF, 2017). AMBAG estimates that the population of Capitola will increase by approximately 7 percent between 2015 and 2040, reaching 10,809 residents by 2040. The number of housing units in Capitola is also expected to increase by 5 percent within the 2015-2040 timeframe, reaching 5,823 housing units by 2040 (AMBAG, 2018). In the 2014-2023 RHNA, Capitola was assigned a total of 143 units, including 34 Very Low Income Units, 23 Low Income Units, 26 Moderate Units, and 60 Above-Moderate Units (AMBAG, 2014). Employment In 2016, Santa Cruz County had an annual average (not seasonally adjusted) unemployment rate of 6.9 percent, which represents a decrease from the 2014 county unemployment rate of 8.8 percent and a 2010 annual unemployment rate of 13.3 percent (EDD, 2018a). The labor force Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing in Santa Cruz County was estimated to be approximately 144,500, with approximately 134,600 people employed in 2016 (EDD, 2017). The construction industry makes up approximately 10 percent of jobs in the AMBAG region (AMBAG, 2018). Due to the economic crisis in 2008, the construction industry in the AMBAG region (Santa Cruz and Monterey counties) experienced a 9.2 percent decrease in jobs from 20052010 (AMBAG, 2018). However, from 2010-2015, the construction industry grew 5.4 percent and is expected to grow an additional 0.5 percent form 2015-2040 (AMBAG, 2018). In 2017, there were approximately 4,800-5,100 construction jobs in Santa Cruz County depending on the month (EDD, 2018b). 1 4.14.3 Regulatory Framework Regional Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments In accordance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), determined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) develops a methodology for distributing existing and projected housing needs to local jurisdictions within Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties. The AMBAG RHNA 2014-2023 was last published in 2014 and established the number of housing units each city and county is responsible for accommodating in the housing element of their general plans. Local Santa Cruz County General Plan Housing Element The Santa Cruz County General Plan contains a Housing Element which was last updated in 2016. The Housing Element of the General Plan contains policies and guidance for land use planning and development activities within Santa Cruz County (County of Santa Cruz, 2016). The following program is relevant to the Project: Program 3.4: Work with local utility districts to ensure compliance with the state law requirement that all public sewer and water providers provide priority to and retain sufficient capacity for affordable housing projects. City of Santa Cruz General Plan Housing Element The City of Santa Cruz 2015-2023 Housing Element was updated in 2016 and provides goals and policies to guide City of Santa Cruz land use and development decisions and meet the city’s housing needs (City of Santa Cruz, 2016). The following policy is relevant to the Project: Policy 6.2: Ensure that adequate water supplies and sewer services continue to be available for residents and businesses. 1 Industry and employment estimations by the Employment Development Department use NAICS codes to determine industry employment. The NAICS code for construction includes mining and logging. Therefore, estimations of construction employment include logging and mining employment. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing City of Capitola General Plan Housing Element The 2015-2023 Housing Element was certified on February 4, 2016. The housing element identifies critical issues related to housing in the City of Capitola and outlines policies and programs to address the issues (City of Capitola, 2015). The following policy is relevant to the Project include: Policy 1.1: Provide adequate sites and supporting infrastructure to accommodate the present and future housing needs of Capitola residents. 4.14.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Implementation of the Project would have a significant direct or indirect impact related to population and housing if it would: • Induce substantial population growth in an area, directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses); • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; or • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Approach to Analysis Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No Project activities would involve the removal of housing or otherwise displace people. Therefore, the Project would not displace substantial numbers of people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. For the construction phase of the Project, this analysis considers whether the Project would induce substantial population growth in the study area directly, as a result of construction workers moving to the area. For the operation phase of the Project, this analysis considers whether the Project would have a direct impact to population as a result of permanent workers moving to the study area. Potential indirect effects, such as providing infrastructure and resources that could support a larger population in the study area, are addressed in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations. The evaluation of potential population and housing effects considers employment demand that would be created by the Project as a whole. The analysis compares the number of Project-related jobs to current and recent employment levels in the study area, as a means to assess whether demand for Project employment would likely be met primarily by the local and regional labor pool, or attract substantial numbers of workers from outside the region. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.14-3. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.14-3 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – POPULATION AND HOUSING Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.14-1: The Project would not induce substantial population growth directly during Project construction or operation. LS NOTE: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation proposed Impact Discussion Impact 4.14-1: The Project would not induce substantial population growth directly during Project construction or operation. (Less than Significant) Construction Project construction would occur over a 36-month period. This EIR assumes that up to four crews of workers would be employed to work concurrently on the construction of the three Project components. One crew of 10-20 workers per day (depending on the type of treatment facility built) would be employed for the construction of the pumps and treatment facilities. One crew of 5-6 workers for each of the three sites would be employed for the construction of the recharge and monitoring wells. Two separate crews of 7-10 workers each would be employed to work concurrently on the construction of the conveyance pipelines. Therefore, during the period of construction, the Project would employ a workforce of between 29-58 workers. The duration of construction for individual Project components would vary from 12 months for the SC WWTF source water pump station, to 36 months for the Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF). Consequently, the number of construction workers needed would vary, from 29 to 58, over the 36-month construction period. Construction employment during the peak period (i.e., 58 jobs) represents approximately one percent of the total construction jobs in Santa Cruz County in 2017 (EDD, 2018b). The percentage would be considerably lower if Monterey County construction jobs were factored in. Given that the construction workforce required for the Project would represent a minor percentage of the current local and regional construction employment levels, Project construction is not expected to create employment opportunities substantially greater than would normally be available to construction workers in the area. Therefore, the Project’s construction workforce demand would be expected to be met by the local and regional labor pool. Given the temporary nature of the construction work, coupled with the high cost of living in Santa Cruz, it is expected that construction workers who do not live near the Project sites would commute from elsewhere in Santa Cruz County, or from Monterey or San Benito counties, rather than relocate from more Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing distant cities and towns. In the event that construction workers relocated to the study area for the duration of construction, their stay would be temporary and would represent a small increase relative to the overall population (even if prolonged or permanent), and therefore would not be substantial. Consequently, construction of the Project would not induce population growth by attracting a substantial number of workers from outside the region to relocate to the area, and therefore would not create demand for additional housing or other facilities and services associated with growth. Operation The Project would require approximately six additional District staff members for operations and maintenance. This analysis assumes that workers employed to staff Project operations would be drawn from within the study area. The labor force in Santa Cruz County was estimated to be 144,500 in 2016, and the county had an unemployment rate of 6.9 percent. The staff needed for Project operations would represent .004 percent of the total labor force in the County. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the existing labor pool in the County would be sufficient to meet the employment demands of Project operation. If workers were required to relocate from outside the County, the addition of six staff positions and families to the population of Santa Cruz County would not result in substantial population growth in the region. Therefore, operation of the Project would not generate a significant demand for employment that would cause a significant increase in population in the County. There would be no direct substantial adverse impacts to population and housing due to Project operation. The Project would not include any housing construction and would not induce growth directly by constructing housing that would attract people to the area. Construction and operation employment demands related to the Project would be anticipated to be met by the existing labor pool within the study area. Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not directly induce a substantial increase in the local population or demand for housing; the effect would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.14.5 References – Population and Housing Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2018. Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast: Technical Documentation. Scheduled for Adoption June 2018. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2014. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: 2014-2023. Adopted June 11, 2014. California Department of Finance, 2017. Table E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates January 1, 2011-2017, with 2010 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 1, 2017. Available at www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/. Accessed on February 7, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.14 Population and Housing California Department of Finance, 2018. Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 2060 in 1-year increments. January 2018. Available at www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/. Accessed on February 7, 2018. California Employment Development Department (EDD), 2012. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places: Annual Average 2012 – Revised. April 21, 2017. Available at www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/data/labor-force-and-unemployment-forcities-and-census-areas.html. Accessed on February 7, 2018. California Employment Development Department, 2017. Monthly Labor Force Data for Cities and Census Designated Places: Annual Average 2016 – Revised. March 3, 2017 Available at www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfhist/16aacou.pdf. Accessed on February 7, 2018. California Employment Development Department, 2018a. Historical Data for Unemployment Rate in Santa Cruz County - Revised February 7, 2018. Available at www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/cgi/dataanalysis/areaselection.asp?tablename=labforce. Accessed on February 7, 2018. California Employment Development Department, 2018b. LMI [Labor Market Information] for Santa Cruz County (Santa Cruz Watsonville MSA [Santa Cruz County]), California, Industry Employment Data, Annual Average 1990-2016, January 19, 2018. Accessed on February 8, 2018. City of Capitola, 2015. 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted November 25, 2015. Accessed on March 26, 2018. City of Santa Cruz, 2016. 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted March 22, 2016. Accessed on March 26, 2018. Santa Cruz County, 2016. 2015 Santa Cruz County Housing Element; adopted by the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors February 9, 2016; certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development April 28, 2016. Accessed on February 7, 2018. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016a. DP04, Selected Housing Characteristics: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Selected Geographies. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016b DP05 ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Selected Geographies. U.S. Census Bureau, 2016c DP03 ACS Selected Economic Characteristics: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Selected Geographies. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a. DP-1. Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: 2010: 2010 Census Summary File 1. Selected Geographies. U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b. DP03. ACS Selected Economic Characteristics: 2010: 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Selected Geographies. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.14-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation 4.15 Transportation 4.15.1 Introduction This section evaluates the transportation and circulation impacts that could occur during construction and operational activities associated with the proposed water treatment facility, recharge and monitoring wells, and pipelines (Project). The impact analysis assesses whether construction and operational activities would cause significant impacts on traffic flow (including public transit and non-motorized travel), traffic safety, or access within the surrounding roadway system. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Transportation generally concern impacts on traffic to nearby residents, schools, bus stops and State Highway 1. These comments have been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.15.2 Environmental Setting The study area for transportation and circulation includes a network of regional and local roadways within the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and the Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos communities of unincorporated Santa Cruz County. This road network would be used for access by construction workers’ vehicles and other construction vehicles, including trucks that would transport construction materials, excavated spoils, and fill materials to and from the work sites, as well as for the six staff positions that would be added to support Project operations and maintenance. Regional Roadways Various state highways provide regional access to the Project area and connect to the local roadway network. These roadways are described below. State Highway 1: Highway 1 is a four- to six-lane, north-south roadway (although primarily oriented east-west in the Project area). It is a freeway with various interchanges to access Project work sites, except north (west) of Ocean Avenue, where it is a non-freeway with intersections at Bay Street and Laurel Street to access work sites in the vicinity of the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF). According to California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) data, the annual average daily traffic (AADT) on Highway 1 ranges from 84,000 to 97,000 vehicles on the freeway portion, and 37,000 to 61,000 vehicles on the non-freeway portion (Caltrans, 2017). State Highway 9: Highway 9 is a two-lane roadway that runs from Highway 1 northward to Felton and beyond. According to Caltrans data, the AADT on Highway 9 near Highway 1 is about 5,200 vehicles (Caltrans, 2017). State Highway 17: Highway 17 is a four- to six-lane roadway that runs from Highway 1 northward to Scotts Valley, Los Gatos, and San Jose. According to Caltrans data, the AADT on Highway 17 near Highway 1 is about 70,000 vehicles (Caltrans, 2017). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Local Roadways The Project area is served by a network of roads with various purposes: “arterials,” designed to carry traffic through an area; “collectors,” designed to connect arterials to local roads and land uses; and “local roads,” which provide direct access to land uses. The roadways that could be affected by construction and operation of the proposed pipeline projects are primarily two-lane roads, although some of the roads have four travel lanes (two in each direction). Table 4.15-1 presents the roadway characteristics (e.g., number of lanes, parking availability, bikeways, transit service) of the local roads within which pipelines are proposed to be installed and/or are likely to be used by construction workers and vehicles to access the Project work sites. TABLE 4.15-1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE PROJECT AREA Roadway / Segment No. of Lanes On-Street Parking Permitted? Bicycle Route? Public Transit Lines?a Comments 1. In Vicinity of Santa Cruz WWTF Campbell Street: • Broadway to Barson Street Two lanes Yes No No Campbell Street: • Barson Street to Riverside Avenue Two lanes Yes, one side only Yes No One-way Street Riverside Avenue: • Campbell Street to San Lorenzo Blvd Two lanes Yes, one side only Yes No One-way Street Four lanes No No No Two lanes No No No Third Street: • Leibrandt Avenue to Main Street Two lanes Yes No No Third Street: • Main Street to Front Street Two lanes Varies No No Front Street: • Third Street to Pacific Avenue Two lanes Yes No No Pacific Avenue: • Front Street to Beach Street 3–4 lanes No No Yes (#3, 19, 20) Three lanes (divided) Yes, one side only Yes Yes (#3, 19, 20) Cliff Drive: • Beach Street to Bay Street Three lanes No Yes Yes (#3, 19, 20) Bay Street: • Cliff Drive to California Street Two lanes Varies Yes Yes (#3, 19, 20) California Street: • Bay Street to Laurel Street Two lanes Yes Yes No Riverside Avenue: • San Lorenzo Blvd to Third Street Third Street: • Riverside Avenue to Leibrandt Avenue Beach Street: • Pacific Avenue to Cliff Drive Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-2 Diagonal parking on west side in some areas One-way Street between 2nd Street and Pacific Avenue Route 20 to Laguna Speed bumps; Spring Hill School ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation TABLE 4.15-1 (CONTINUED) CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE PROJECT AREA Roadway / Segment On-Street Parking Permitted? Bicycle Route? Two lanes Sporadic Yes Three lanes Sporadic Yes No Four lanes Sporadic Yes No 4, then 3, then 2 Sporadic Yes Yes (#68) Two lanes (divided) Yes Yes No Two lanes Yes No No Four lanes Sporadic Yes Yes (#66, 69A, 69W, 71) Four lanes No Yes No Three lanes Sporadic Yes No Two lanes No Yes No 3–4 lanes Varies No No Two lanes Only near Gross Road No No Two lanes No Yes No Two lanes Yes, one side only Yes No Two lanes No (ex. Some recessed) Yes No Two lanes Yes No No Two lanes Yes No No Two lanes Yes, one side only Yes No No. of Lanes Public Transit Lines?a Comments 1. In Vicinity of Santa Cruz WWTF (cont.) Laurel Street: • California Street to Pacific Avenue Laurel Street: • Pacific Avenue to Front Street Laurel Street: • Front Street to Broadway Broadway: • Laurel Street to Darwin Street Broadway: • Darwin Street to Frederick Street Frederick Street: • Broadway to Soquel Avenue Soquel Avenue: • Frederick Street to State Route 1 ramps Yes Routes 40 and 41 are westbound (#15, 16, 40, only 41, 42) 2. In Vicinity of Chanticleer Site Soquel Avenue: • State Route 1 ramps to State Route 1 ramps Soquel Avenue: • State Route 1 ramps to 17th Street Soquel Avenue: • 17th Avenue to Gross Road Gross Road: • Soquel Avenue to Auto Plaza Drive Auto Plaza Drive: • Gross Road to Parking Lot Wharf Road: • Soquel Wharf Road to north of Grace Street Wharf Road: • north of Grace Street to 49th Avenue 49th Avenue: • Wharf Road to Capitola Road 49th Avenue: • Capitola Road to Topaz Street Topaz Street: • 49th Avenue to 47th Avenue 47th Avenue: • Topaz Street to SCC RR r-o-w Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-3 Area of Two-way Left-turn Lane Speed bumps Speed bumps ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation TABLE 4.15-1 (CONTINUED) CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE PROJECT AREA Roadway / Segment No. of Lanes On-Street Parking Permitted? Bicycle Route? Public Transit Lines?a Comments 2. In Vicinity of Chanticleer Site (cont.) 7th Avenue: • SCC RR r-o-w to Brommer Street Two lanes Varies Yes No Small raised median just south of Brommer Street 7th Avenue: • Brommer Street to Capitola Road Two lanes Sporadic Yes Yes (#66) Small raised median just north of Brommer Street Capitola Road: • Soquel Avenue to 16th Avenue Two lanes Yes Yes Two-way Left-turn Lane and Yes (#69A, 69W) raised medians Capitola Road: • 16th Avenue to Chanticleer Avenue Four lanes No Yes Yes (#69A, 69W) Capitola Road: • Chanticleer Avenue to 30th Avenue Two lanes Yes Yes Two-way Left-turn Lane and Yes (#69A, 69W) raised medians Capitola Road: • 30th Avenue to Lotman Drive 3-4 lanes No Yes Yes (#69A, 69W) Capitola Road: • Lotman Drive to 44th Avenue Four lanes Sporadic Yes Yes (#55, 66, 69A, 69W) Capitola Road: • 44th Avenue to 49th Avenue 3-4 lanes No Yes Yes (#55) Streets Xing SCC RR Right-of-Way 41st Avenue Two lanes Yes Yes Yes (#68) 38th Avenue Two lanes No No Yes (#66) 30th Avenue Two lanes No Yes No 17th Avenue Two lanes No Yes Yes (#66) With Two-way Left-turn Lane 3. In Vicinity of Headquarters-West Annex Site / Recharge Well Sites Soquel Wharf Road: • Wharf Road to Porter Street Porter Street: • South Main Street to Soquel Wharf Road One lane Yes, one side only Yes No One-way street Four lanes No Yes No Raised median Porter Street: • Soquel Wharf Road to Soquel Drive Two lanes No Yes No Soquel Drive: • Porter Street to Rosedale Avenue Four lanes No Yes Yes (#55, 69W, 71) South Main Street: • Porter Street to East Walnut Street Two lanes Yes No No East Walnut Street: • South Main Street to Soquel Drive Two lanes Yes, one side only Yes No Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-4 Soquel Elementary School ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation TABLE 4.15-1 (CONTINUED) CHARACTERISTICS OF ROADWAYS IN THE PROJECT AREA Roadway / Segment No. of Lanes On-Street Parking Permitted? Bicycle Route? Public Transit Lines?a Comments 3. In Vicinity of Headquarters-West Annex Site / Recharge Well Sites (cont.) Rosedale Avenue: • Soquel Drive to Dead End Two lanes Yes No No Kennedy Drive: • Rosedale Avenue to Monterey Avenue Two lanes Varies No No Monterey Avenue: • Kennedy Drive to Monterey Park Two lanes Yes Yes No Kennedy Drive: • Monterey Avenue to Park Avenue Two lanes Yes Yes No Sir Francis Avenue: • Kennedy Drive to Coronado Street Two lanes Yes No No Park Avenue: • Kennedy Drive to Cabrillo College Drive Four lanes No Yes No Cabrillo College Drive: • Park Avenue to Cabrillo College Well Sites Two lanes No No No Willowbrook Lane: • Cabrillo College Dr. to Willowbrook Park Two lanes Yes No No Parked cars are partially on pavement (no curb) NOTE: a Santa Cruz Metro Transit District provides transit service in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline Project areas. Bus route numbers are in parentheses. SOURCES: ESA, 2018; SCMTD, 2017. Parking Table 4.15-1 presents the availability of on-street parking spaces on local roads within which pipelines are proposed to be installed and/or are likely to be used by construction workers and vehicles to access the Project work sites. This information is of interest primarily for those roads where on-street parking spaces could be temporarily displaced to accommodate traffic flow past the construction zone during pipeline installation. Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Table 4.15-1 identifies the local roads within which pipelines are proposed to be installed and/or are likely to be used by construction workers and vehicles to access the Project work sites. In general, roadways that would be affected by construction activities have developed pedestrian facilities, including raised concrete sidewalks, striped crosswalks, and curb cuts at intersections. Bikeways along these roadways primarily consist of Class II (striped bicycle lanes within the paved areas of roadways), or Class III (designated and signed bicycle routes where cyclists share street with vehicles). The majority of bikeways in the Project area are Class II bicycle lanes. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Public Transit Table 4.15-1 identifies the public transit service on the local roads within which pipelines are proposed to be installed and/or are likely to be used by construction workers and vehicles to access the Project work sites. The Santa Cruz Metro Transit District (SCMTD) provides bus service in proximity to the Project area. Several SCMTD bus routes, including 3 Mission / Seymour Center / Beach, 15 UCSC via Laurel West (school year only), 16 UCSC via Laurel East, 19 UCSC via Lower Bay, 20 UCSC via Westside, 40 Davenport / North Coast Beaches, 41 Bonny Doon, 42 Davenport / Bonny Doon, 66 Live Oak via 17th, 68 Live Oak via Broadway / Portola, 69 Capitola Road / Cabrillo / Watsonville, and 71 Watsonville to Santa Cruz operate in the Project area. 4.15.3 Regulatory Framework Federal and State Regulations There are no federal regulations that address transportation impacts associated with the Project. Caltrans manages interregional transportation, including management and construction of the California state highway system. In addition, Caltrans is responsible for permitting and regulation of the use of state roadways. Caltrans’ facilities that are likely to be used as access routes by construction workers and construction vehicles to the planned work sites include: Highway 1, Highway 9, and Highway 17. Caltrans’ construction practices require temporary traffic control planning “during any time the normal function of a roadway is suspended” (Caltrans, 2015). Furthermore, Caltrans requires that permits be obtained for transportation of oversized loads and transportation of certain materials, and for construction-related traffic disturbance. Construction and maintenance activities associated with the Project would utilize state roadways solely as access routes for construction workers, and construction vehicles, and Project construction would not occur on state highways or highway rights-of-way. However, the Project would include pipeline installation under Highway 1, by either trenchless tunneling or use of existing underpasses; therefore, Caltrans encroachment permits would be required. Further, oversized vehicles (by weight, height, length, or width) or vehicles carrying hazardous materials that require Caltrans permits would not be used. Regional and Local Regulations California state law requires each county and city to adopt “a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and any land outside its boundaries which bears relation to its planning” (Government Code section 65300). State Planning and Zoning Law (Government Code Section 65302(a)) establishes the requirements for elements to be included in the general plan. However, the Santa Cruz County General Plan, and the General Plans for the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola provide policies and programs to guide the future growth and physical development, and their goals and policies apply to permanent growth and development, not to temporary activities such as construction activities. Likewise, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments and the Santa Cruz Regional Transportation Commission do not set policies that apply to temporary construction activities. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Encroachment Permit Requirements The portions of the Project within unincorporated lands in Santa Cruz County include the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, and Willowbrook Park Recharge Well, Cabrillo College Recharge Well, Twin Lakes Church Recharge Well, and several pipeline segments. County approval of an encroachment permit would be required to allow for the installation of proposed pipelines within county-maintained roads and rights-of-way. The portions of the Project within the limits of City of Santa Cruz include the Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility and the pipeline conveyance system west of Arana Gulch. City approval of an encroachment permit would be required to allow for the installation of the proposed pipelines within roads and rights-of-way of Santa Cruz. The portions of the Project that lie within the City of Capitola include the proposed conveyance pipelines generally east of 30th Avenue and south of Highway 1, as well as the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well. City approval of an encroachment permit would be required to allow for the installation of the proposed pipelines within roads and rights-of-way of Capitola. 4.15.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on transportation if it would: • Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation, including mass transit, non-motorized travel, and relevant components of the circulation system (including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit); • Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service (LOS) standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways; • Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in locations that results in substantial safety risks; • Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); • Result in inadequate emergency access; or • Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Approach to Analysis Because of the nature of the proposed Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation • Conflict with an Applicable Congestion Management Program. In 2000, at the request of the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (SCCRTC), the County of Santa Cruz and other local jurisdictions exercised the option to be exempt from preparation and implementation of a Congestion Management Plan (CMP) per Assembly Bill 2419. As a result, the County of Santa Cruz no longer has a Congestion Management Agency or CMP. In addition, regardless of this exemption, the standards established by CMPs in general are intended for use in evaluating traffic impacts related to added vehicle trips during Project operation and are not applicable to construction-related vehicle traffic. Project operations following construction of the planned facilities would only require periodic maintenance, and would not result in a substantial change in vehicle trips, as further discussed below. Because Project construction would be transitory in nature, and effects on roadway and intersection operations would be temporary, a level of service analysis for construction is not required. • Change Air Traffic Patterns. The Project sites are not near an airfield; the Watsonville Municipal Airport is about 10 to 13 miles to the east. These distances are outside of the limit for objects near airports in the guidance published by the Federal Aviation Administration. Therefore, this criterion is not discussed further. • Substantially Increase Hazards due to a Design Feature. Implementation of the Project would not permanently change the existing or planned transportation network and would not include any design features that would permanently increase the potential for traffic safety hazards. Therefore, this significance criterion is not applicable to the Project and is not discussed further. Following construction, District’s contractor would restore excavated areas to their general preconstruction conditions, and operation of the Project would generate few new daily vehicle trips (by the six staff positions that would be added to support existing District staff, and those required for occasional maintenance). As described in Section 3.7.1, Facilities Operations and Maintenance, the facilities would be monitored remotely during Project operations. Facility operators would conduct routine visits (the frequency of which would be guided by manufacturer specifications; e.g., daily, weekly, monthly). At these limited levels of vehicle trips, Project operation would not substantially affect the transportation network. As indicated in the significance criteria above, construction-related transportation impacts are not generally considered by jurisdictions with management responsibility to be significant because of their temporary duration and limited scope. However, because the Project would not result in operational impacts on traffic, the analysis focuses solely on the potential short-term effects of construction—including those on traffic operations (including transit), pedestrian/bicycle facilities, and emergency access. The construction-related information used for the analysis is based on current Project specifications, including construction durations (see Chapter 3, Project Description). The transportation impacts identified below allow for a general assessment of the nature and magnitude of potential impacts associated with the construction of each Project component. In addition, the final construction scheduling of specific Project components could result in traffic impacts related to concurrent construction activities. Thus, traffic generation is described for individual Project components and for potential construction of concurrent Project components. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.15-2. The detailed impact discussions follows. TABLE 4.15-2 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – TRANSPORTATION Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.15-1: Closure of travel lanes during Project construction could temporarily reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic delays on area roadways, causing temporary and intermittent conflicts with all modes of travel. Impact 4.15-2: Project construction would cause temporary increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not cause substantial conflicts with the performance of the circulation system. LSM LS Impact 4.15-3: Pipeline construction could cause temporary and intermittent impedance to access to adjacent roadways and land uses. LSM Impact 4.15-4: Pipeline construction would not substantially impair access to alternative transportation facilities (public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities), although it could temporarily decrease the performance of such facilities. LSM Impact 4.15-5: Project operations and maintenance activities would cause some increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not substantially alter transportation conditions and would not cause conflicts with alternative travel modes, including vehicles, emergency vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. LS NOTES: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Impact Discussion Construction Impacts Impact 4.15-1: Closure of travel lanes during pipeline construction could temporarily reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic delays on area roadways, causing temporary and intermittent conflicts with all modes of travel. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities for the proposed water treatment facility and recharge/monitoring wells would not require the closure of any travel lanes, and therefore, they would not reduce the roadway capacity on roads that provide access to those sites. The proposed installation of pipelines in roadways, however, would require temporary closures of travel lanes, and the effect of pipeline installation on the performance of the circulation system to accommodate all modes of transportation (auto, transit, and non-motorized modes) is discussed below. Pipeline Alignments In general, construction at any given time along the pipeline alignments (and associated travel lane restrictions) would occur over a length of approximately 100 feet at a time. The typical trench width for open-trench construction would be 9 feet. Project staging areas would be established adjacent to pipeline alignments throughout the Project area. Pipeline construction would require the temporary closure of one travel lane and, as needed, the temporary closure of a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation bicycle lane and/or prohibition of on-street parking. In some instances, the width of the affected road could be narrow enough to require temporary full road closure (with traffic detour) to accommodate the construction zone. Even when traffic flow would be accommodated (e.g., with alternate two-way flow in one lane), motorists could choose to divert to other streets, bypassing the construction zone. Traffic delays and conflicts between travel modes could be significant. Work within roadways (i.e., within the public right-of-way) would require that the District obtain encroachment permits from the entity with jurisdictions over the right-of-way (i.e., the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and Santa Cruz County). As part of the above-mentioned encroachment permit process, the District, working with the county and the appropriate city, would implement Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) to maintain and protect vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic that would be affected during Project construction. Although a jurisdictional requirement, this EIR identifies the preparation and implementation of TCPs as a mitigation measure (see below). Construction activities along affected roadways (see Table 4.15-1) would temporarily disrupt existing circulation patterns because of lane blockages, which would temporarily reduce the number of travel lanes and could require either alternating one-way traffic flow or the removal of parking spaces on one or both sides of the block to maintain two-way traffic flow. The specific treatment to maintain traffic flow would be determined on a case-by-case basis during final Project design and preparation of the required TCPs. Construction activities at intersections would temporarily affect cross traffic as well, requiring some travel lane diversion around the construction area. Due to the short duration and limited magnitude of traffic disruptions, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1, Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction) would reduce construction-related impacts resulting from a temporary reduction in roadway capacity and increased traffic delays to less-than-significant levels. 1 Traffic control plans (TCPs) are prepared for each agency with jurisdiction over the specific public roads that would be affected by the Project (usually as part of the encroachment permit process). Local agencies do not review TCPs until the specific roadways that would be affected by the Project have been identified. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.15-1: Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction) Prior to commencement of Project construction, the District and/or contractor(s) shall arrange for Traffic Control Plans (TCPs) to be prepared by a licensed traffic engineer. The TCPs shall comply with requirements in agreements executed between the District and the public works departments of the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and Santa Cruz County (which have jurisdiction over the public roads in the area), and will include, but not be limited to, the following elements: • 1 Circulation and detour routes shall be developed to minimize impacts on local street circulation during lane and road closures. For example, lane closures shall generally As of the date of this EIR, the District is continuing to evaluate the specific assemblage of Project components and pipeline alignments. Part of the purpose of the EIR is to evaluate the site options and provide information to support the District’s decision regarding final Project design. Once the final Project configuration has been determined, the specific roadways that would be affected – and the associated agencies with jurisdiction – would be known. At that time, the District would proceed with preparation of the TCP(s). Accordingly, to prepare the TCPs before the final Project design has been determined would be premature. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation avoid the AM and PM peak commute hours. Flaggers and/or signage shall be used to guide vehicles through and/or around the construction zone. Roadside construction safety protocols shall be implemented. • Truck routes designated by affected jurisdictions shall be identified. Haul routes that both minimize truck traffic on local roadways and residential streets, and maximize fuel efficiency per Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 (Construction Equipment Efficiency Plan), shall be utilized. • Sufficient staging areas shall be developed for trucks accessing construction zones to minimize disruption of access to adjacent land uses, particularly at entries to on-site pipeline construction within residential neighborhoods. • Construction vehicle movement shall be controlled and monitored through the enforcement of standard construction specifications by on-site inspectors. • If deemed necessary by the affected jurisdictions, truck trips shall be scheduled to minimize trips during the peak morning and evening commute hours. • Roads shall be restored to the pre‐Project number of lanes, with all trenches covered with steel plates or the equivalent outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress. • Construction shall be coordinated with Santa Cruz Metro Transit District to determine any temporary rerouting for bus lines in work zones that may be needed. • Bicycle and pedestrian access and circulation shall be maintained during Project construction where safe to do so. The contractor shall be required to maintain bicycle lanes/lane widths to accommodate bicycle traffic or seek a permit from the appropriate jurisdiction to address bicycle route detours and signage for any lane closures. Where construction activities encroach on a bicycle lane, advance warning signs (e.g., “Bicyclists Allowed Use of Full Lane” and/or “Share the Road”) shall be posted to indicate that bicycles and vehicles are sharing the lane and to warn bicyclists and drivers of upcoming traffic hazards. If construction activities encroach on a sidewalk, safe crossings and appropriate signage shall be provided for pedestrians. • All equipment and materials shall be stored in designated contractor staging areas on or adjacent to the worksite, such that traffic obstruction is minimized. • Construction shall be coordinated with facility owners or administrators of police and fire stations (including all fire protection agencies), hospitals, and schools. Facility owners or operators shall be notified in advance of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities and the locations of detours and lane closures. Emergency service vehicles shall be given priority for access. • A public information plan shall be developed to provide adjacent residents and businesses with regularly updated information regarding Project construction in their area, including construction activities, durations, peak construction vehicle activities (e.g., excavation), bus stop relocations, travel lane closures, and other lane closures. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation This information shall also be presented on the District website and shall be updated regularly as construction conditions change. • Portable changeable message signs shall be used to provide advance notice of lane closures. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.15-2: Project construction could cause temporary increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not cause substantial conflicts with the performance of the circulation system. (Less than Significant) Each of the construction activities (excavation, construction of recharge/monitoring wells, AWPF, and at the SC WWTF, installation of new pipeline, backfilling of excavated area, and site restoration) would generate various types of vehicle trips: construction workers’ vehicles traveling to and from the work sites; haul trucks associated with the transfer and disposal of excavation materials; haul trucks associated with the importing of backfill materials; and delivery trucks bringing materials and equipment to the work sites. The majority of construction activities would occur on weekdays between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., and possibly on Saturdays between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. However, development of the recharge wells would require 24-hour construction for a period of 2 to 3 weeks for well drilling, requiring nighttime lighting for safety and security. This analysis conservatively assumes concurrent construction of an AWPF, one recharge well, and two pipeline segments. Construction-Related Vehicle Trips Construction of each element of the Project would result in short-term increases in vehicle trips on area roadways. The number of construction-related vehicle trips would vary each day, depending on the type of Project component, construction phase, planned activity, and material needs. The addition of construction traffic to the current roadway volumes, without an increase in roadway capacity, could result in increased congestion and delays for vehicles, including public transit. The presence of construction trucks, with their slower speeds and larger turning radii, could result in some vehicle delays and congestion. The actual impact of construction vehicle traffic on local and regional roadways would vary by time of day, the number and type of construction-related vehicles, the number of travel lanes on the affected roadways, and existing traffic volumes on these roadways. Impacts of construction traffic would be most noticeable on roadways in the immediate vicinity of the Project work sites and less noticeable on regional roadways and on roadways farther away from the sites (as Project trips disperse over the road network). Worker Vehicle Trips As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, construction at the SC WWTF would average up to 15 construction workers per day, with peak construction activities having up to 20 workers per day, and construction at the Chanticleer Site or the Headquarters-West Annex site would require an average of 12 construction workers, and a peak of up to 16 workers. Construction of the recharge and monitoring wells would require a maximum of 6 workers per day for each site. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Construction for pipeline installation would require up to two crews, each with an average of 7 workers (and a peak of up to 10 workers) per day. Although construction worker travel mode is unknown, for this analysis it was assumed that all workers would travel to and from the Project site in their own vehicles. Haul Truck Trips The number of construction-related haul truck trips per day would vary depending on the type of construction technique, the volume of spoils and fill, and the pace of work. As presented in Chapter 3, Project Description, open-cut trenching and excavation would be used during pipeline installation, which would require haul trucks to export excavated spoils and import fill material along the alignment. Haul truck trips also would be generated during demolition of existing structures at the SC WWTF and/or Chanticleer Sites. Table 3-6 summarizes excess spoils, construction area, construction equipment types, truck trips, and construction duration for each primary Project component. Construction truck traffic would be required to follow designated truck routes to the Project sites, as well as other streets that provide the most direct route to the work site and minimize the use of local streets. Table 4.15-3 presents the projected number of vehicles that would be generated by Project construction activities. These projections include trips to and from the Project work sites and account for daily construction worker commutes and haul truck trips. Based on the estimated amount of traffic generated by each Project component, concurrent construction activities could result in daily one-way vehicle trips of up to 126 by workers and 428 by haul trucks. All worker trips to and from the work sites are assumed to occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak (commute) traffic hours (i.e., up to 63 inbound to the work sites prior to 8:00 a.m., and up to 63 outbound from the work sites after 5:00 p.m.). Haul truck trips would be spread over the course of the 9-hour day (i.e., up to about 48 one-way trips per hour). The highest concentration of vehicle trips traveling to and from the well facility sites would be on the roads that provide direct access to the sites. However, not all of the facilities and pipelines are located near each other, and it is reasonably assumed that workers’ residences would be spread out among various cities, and that Project trips would be dispersed on different roads. On that basis, the estimated daily vehicle trips associated with concurrent construction activities would represent a less-than-substantial increase on regional roads (e.g., Highway 1), and similarly would not substantially alter the existing operations of local roads. The impact related to temporary increases in traffic volume associated with construction vehicle traffic would be a lessening of their traffic-carrying capacities due to the slower movement and larger turning radii of trucks, which potentially could significantly affect traffic and transit operations. However, due to its temporary nature and limited magnitude, the effect of this construction-related increase in traffic and truck volume on traffic and transit operations would not be substantial (is considered to be less than significant). Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation TABLE 4.15-3 ESTIMATED DAILY VEHICLE TRIPS DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND FACILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE Daily Worker Tripsa Daily Truck Tripsb 24 to 32 2 to 8 At SC WWTF, or 30 to 40 6 to 24 At Chanticleer Site, or 24 to 32 28 to 112 At Headquarters – West Annex Site 24 to 32 6 to 24 10 to 12 10 to 12 35 to 50 152 to 294 16 2d Project Component Water Treatment Facility or Facilities (Construction) Tertiary Treatment System (at SC WWTF) Advanced Water Purification Facility Recharge and Monitoring Wells (Construction) Up to three recharge wells, each with two monitoring wells (Monterey Avenue, Willowbrook Lane, Twin Lakes Church, and/or Cabrillo College) Conveyance System (Construction) Pipelinesc Facility Operation & Maintenance NOTES: a Total one-way (inbound and outbound) worker vehicle trips. Based on number of construction workers needed for each Project component, and facility operation and maintenance, (see Chapter 3, Project Description), assuming all workers would travel to and from the Project sites in their own vehicles. The range of daily construction worker vehicle trips represents average and peak construction activities. b Total one-way (inbound and outbound) truck trips based on the estimated quantities of spoils and structural fill material, and deliveries of chemicals and other materials to the facilities (see Chapter 3, Project Description). Assumes 100 percent of excess spoils would require off-site disposal. The range of daily construction truck trips represents average and peak construction activities. c Assumes concurrent installation of two pipeline segments. d The primary truck trips during operations would be associated with bulk chemical deliveries (anticipated to be one delivery per month for each chemical that is onsite). Also, there could be one additional truck delivery per month for miscellaneous operation support. Thus, the infrequent deliveries (per month, not per week or per day) likely would generate no more than one delivery on any given day (hence, 2 one-way truck trips). Impact 4.15-3: Pipeline construction could cause temporary and intermittent impedance to access to adjacent roadways and land uses. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction activities for the proposed water treatment facility and recharge/monitoring wells would not require the closure of any travel lanes, and therefore, they would not impede access to adjacent roadways and land uses; i.e., there would be no impact. Pipeline installation using trenchless technologies (see Table 3-7 of the Project Description) could occur at up to 9 locations, each with fixed disturbed areas (entry and exit pits) that may temporarily impair access to land uses (for up to 30 working days per crossing), but not to adjacent roadways; i.e., there would be no impact to traffic flow on area roadways. On the other hand, the proposed open-trench installation of pipelines in roadways would require temporary closures of travel lanes, and the effect of pipeline installation on access (including for emergency vehicles) is discussed below. Construction along affected roadways and temporary roadway and lane closures could result in temporarily impaired access to adjacent land uses, driveways, and cross-streets along the pipeline construction routes in the vicinity of the work sites. Similar to other traffic-related impacts Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation discussed above, the lane closures along the proposed pipeline alignments during construction could slow, but would not prevent, traffic access (including emergency vehicle access). Given the expected pace of work (for a conservative evaluation, assumed to be about 100 feet per day), impaired access to adjacent land uses, driveways, and cross-streets along the pipeline construction routes would be limited to one or two days at most. The Project would restore access and travel or parking lanes during non-construction hours by covering trenches with steel plates or the equivalent. Furthermore, motor vehicle laws require that emergency vehicles (police, fire, and ambulance) be given priority access during lane closures. Emergency service providers could incur delays and impedance to access if they were unaware of lane closures on roads they planned to use to reach their destination, and the potential for such delays and impedance is considered a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 (Traffic Control Plans) would require that the District or its contractor(s) provide notification to all emergency service providers prior to lane closures, and detour signs and flaggers would be in place during the lane closure periods, ensuring a less-than-significant impact. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Impact 4.15-4: Pipeline construction would not substantially impair access to alternative transportation facilities (public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities), although it could temporarily decrease the performance of such facilities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction of the proposed treatment facilities, pipelines, and recharge/monitoring wells would not permanently eliminate or modify alternative transportation corridors or facilities (e.g., bicycle routes or lanes, bus routes/stops, sidewalks). Similar to the effects on automobile traffic from pipeline construction activities (see Impact 4.15-1), temporary closures of travel lanes and sidewalks during Project construction would temporarily increase delays experienced by riders of public transit, bicyclists and pedestrians. Specific impacts on alternative transportation are described below. Effects on bicyclists and pedestrians due to temporary increases in traffic volumes associated with construction of treatment facilities, recharge/monitoring wells, and pipelines, and would be temporary in nature and of limited magnitude, similar to those described in Impact 4.15-2 for traffic and transit operations. Transit Impacts The Project would not create additional demand for local or regional transit lines, but construction could cause temporary and intermittent impacts on the operation of local SCMTD routes. Because streets that accommodate public transit lines would remain open to through traffic during construction activities, the affected bus lines would not be substantially delayed during construction. Any disruptions to local bus service along Project streets would be temporary in nature, affecting only the immediate area surrounding the construction zone. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Although rerouting of transit vehicles would not occur, there could be instances when a bus stop within the active work zone for pipe installation (progressing at a rate of approximately 100 feet per day) would need to be temporarily relocated, and may result in a decrease in the performance of these facilities. However, a temporary relocation of bus stops during Project construction would not be considered a substantial decrease in performance or safety of SCMTD service (is considered to be less than significant). While not required to reduce a significant impact, it is noted that, as part of the required Traffic Control Plans (Mitigation Measure 4.15-1), the District would coordinate with SCMTD (and other regional transportation managers) to coordinate any potential rerouting or relocation of transit stops. Bicycle Impacts In general, construction-related activities such as lane closures and construction vehicle traffic would temporarily increase the potential for motor vehicle and bicycle conflicts. Pipeline installation could temporarily restrict roads to a single lane during construction, and access for bicyclists on the affected roads could be temporarily restricted past the active work zone for pipe installation (progressing at a rate of approximately 100 feet per day). Restricted circulation and an increase in potential conflicts could substantially decrease the performance of roadways and pose a safety hazard for bicycle facilities and use, a significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 (Traffic Control Plans), which would require the District to maintain bicycle lanes/ lane widths to accommodate bicycle traffic during construction, or coordinate with the affected jurisdictions regarding bicycle detours and signage for any lane closures (e.g., posting of advance warning signs that state “Share the Road” for the safety of bicyclists traveling within construction areas), would reduce potentially significant bicycle impacts to a less-than-significant level. Pedestrian Impacts In general, Project construction activities and construction traffic would temporarily increase the potential for motor vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, but would not substantially interfere with the use of pedestrian facilities through the Project area. An increase in potential conflicts would potentially decrease the safety of pedestrian facilities, and therefore could substantially decrease the performance of pedestrian facilities, a significant impact. Sidewalk closures are not anticipated (outside of intermittent blockages by construction vehicles), but if such closures were to occur, the impacts on the performance of pedestrian facilities could be significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 (Traffic Control Plans), which would require the District to provide safe crossings and appropriate signage if construction activities would encroach on a sidewalk, would reduce potentially significant pedestrian impacts to a less-thansignificant level. Mitigation Measures Implement Mitigation Measure 4.15-1. Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.15 Transportation Facility Operations and Maintenance Impacts Impact 4.15-5: Project operations and maintenance activities would cause increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not substantially alter transportation conditions, and would not cause conflicts with alternative travel modes, including vehicles, emergency vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicycle traffic. (Less than Significant) After construction of the treatment facilities, pipelines, and recharge/monitoring wells is completed, roadways and adjacent facilities would be returned to their general preconstruction conditions. The District would hire approximately six additional staffers to support existing District staff with Project operations. In addition, it would host AWPF tours for up to 30 people, approximately four times per months, during non-peak commute hours. Long-term maintenance could include the removal or repair of pumps, valves and other equipment, as needed, and delivery of chemicals to the treatment facilities. Occasional inspections and repairs of pipelines by small work crews would also be anticipated along all pipeline segments. If the AWPF were constructed at Headquarters-West Annex site, a few additional truck trips per week would be expected in association with the spoils yard. These activities would result in trip generation levels similar to the normal range of variation for existing system operations and maintenance practices, and would not represent a substantial number of new vehicle trips. Overall, any increases in traffic generated by operation and maintenance of Project facilities would be less than substantial compared to existing conditions and would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on adjacent streets. Therefore, operational impacts related to the proposed Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 4.15.5 References – Transportation California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2017. 2016 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, amended December 2015. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.15-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources 4.16.1 Introduction This section presents and discusses the tribal cultural resources associated with the Project construction, implementation, and operation. Also discussed are the environmental setting, regulatory framework, the significance criteria used for determining environmental impacts, and potential impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The cultural resources assessment completed for the Project provides the background support for this section. Comments received during Project scoping relative to Tribal Cultural Resources indicated that Assembly Bill (AB) 52 applies to the Project, recommended consultation with applicable California Native American tribes in order to avoid potential tribal resources impacts and actions to adequately assess the existence and significance of tribal cultural resources and plan for avoidance, preservation in place, or barring both, mitigation of Project-related impacts to tribal cultural resources. 4.16.2 Environmental Setting Definitions Tribal cultural resources are defined as a site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place or object, which is of cultural value to a tribe that is either on or eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) or a local historic register, or the lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource. Background Setting Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, provides the natural and cultural background for the cultural resources and tribal cultural resources analysis as well as a summary of the background research, survey effort, and an evaluation of potential tribal cultural resources (see Section 4.5.2, Environmental Setting). Section 4.5 also provides a summary of the Native American consultation effort for the Project. 4.16.3 Regulatory Framework Federal There are no applicable federal regulations that specifically address tribal cultural resources. State Public Resources Code Section 21074 In September 2014, the California Legislature passed AB 52, which added provisions to the Public Resources Code (PRC) regarding the evaluation of impacts on tribal cultural resources under CEQA, and consultation requirements with California Native American tribes. In particular, AB 52 now requires lead agencies to analyze project impacts on tribal cultural resources separately from archaeological resources (PRC Section 21074; 21083.09). The Bill Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.16-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources defines tribal cultural resources in a new section of the PRC Section 21074. AB 52 also requires lead agencies to engage in additional consultation procedures with respect to California Native American tribes (PRC Section 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3). Specifically, PRC Section 21084.3 states: a) Public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource. b) If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process provided in Section 21080.3.2, the following are examples of mitigation measures that, if feasible, may be considered to avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts: 1) Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including, but not limited to, planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context, or planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria. 2) Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource. B. Protecting the traditional use of the resource. C. Protecting the confidentiality of the resource. 3) Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. 4) Protecting the resource. In addition, the Office of Planning and Research updated Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines to provide sample questions regarding impacts on tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21083.09). Local Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz County Code 16.40 protects Native American cultural sites. Specifically, the code states that there exists in the County of Santa Cruz areas of great importance for the study and preservation of the past of the Native Americans of California and that these Native American cultural sites contain unique, irreplaceable resources significant to the history of the County and for the cultural heritage of our and of all humankind. The County’s policy is to preserve and protect sites and resources for their historic, cultural, educational, and scientific values. 4.16.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on tribal cultural resources if it would cause: Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.16-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources • Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: – Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or, – Determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Approach to Analysis Impacts on tribal cultural resources are assessed in consultation with the affiliated Native American tribe in accordance with PRC Section 21080.3. This analysis considers whether the Project would cause damaging effects to any tribal cultural resource, including archaeological resources and human remains. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.16-1. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.16-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.16-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. LSM NOTE: LSM = Less than Significant impact with Mitigation Impact Discussion Impact 4.16-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The District sent letters to the culturally-affiliated Native American tribes and individuals that may have interest in the Project. One response was received from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band indicating the Project is within the lands of the Awaswas (Northerners) and that there is very little cultural information about this area. A copy of the Cultural Resource portion of the EIR was requested (Ketchum, 2016). Based on the Northwest Information Center background research and surface survey described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, there are no known sacred, ceremonial, or gathering places in the Project area. There may, however, be archaeological resources and/or human remains that could be considered tribal cultural resources in the Project Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.16-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources area and the Project could have an impact on those known resources. Further, if archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during either the implementation of an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan or during ground disturbing activities, impacts to tribal cultural resources could be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a–4.5-2c and Mitigation Measure 4.5-3, as described in Section 4.5, would apply to archaeological resources and human remains that are considered tribal cultural resources and would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a: Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan Mitigation Measure 4.5-2b: Cultural Resources Study of the Chanticleer Site Mitigation Measure 4.5-2c: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure 4.5-3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant. _________________________ 4.16.5 References – Tribal Cultural Resources Ketchum, 2016. Personal communication via email with Melanie Schumacher, Soquel Creek Water District. December 24, 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.16-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.17.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for implementation of the Project to adversely affect utilities and service systems. The utilities and service systems discussed in this section include water supply, wastewater collection, stormwater drainage, and solid waste disposal. The analysis provides mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts, as appropriate. A scoping comment received relative to this Utilities and Service Systems requested information about the disposal of treatment process waste and byproducts. This comment has been considered in the preparation of this analysis. 4.17.2 Environmental Setting The Project would include components in portions of the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and unincorporated Santa Cruz County, California. Water Supply Distribution Systems Soquel Creek Water District The District provides potable water service and groundwater resource management within its service area. The District serves a population of approximately 40,400 through approximately 15,800 connections in a portion of Santa Cruz County. Approximately, 80 percent of the District’s customers are residential, the remaining 20 percent are non-residential (commercial, industrial, schools, governmental, landscape irrigation). There are no agricultural connections to the systems (District, 2018). The City of Capitola is the only incorporated community within the District’s service area. Unincorporated communities within the service area include Aptos, La Selva Beach, Rio Del Mar, Seascape, Seacliff Beach, and Soquel. As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the District currently relies entirely on groundwater for its water supplies. City of Santa Cruz Water Department The City of Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) serves an area of approximately 20 square miles, including the City of Santa Cruz, Live Oak, portions of the City of Capitola and coastal agricultural lands north of the City (City of Santa Cruz, 2016). The City’s water system is comprised of the following main production elements: 1) the North Coast River Sources, 2) the San Lorenzo River, 3) Loch Lomond Reservoir, and 4) the Live Oak Wells. Major facilities within the City’s water supply system include the Graham Hill Treatment Plant, several pump stations, and distribution reservoirs and pipelines. Wastewater The Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (SCCSD) is a non-profit public agency providing sewage collection, treatment, and disposal services to the unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, including the Live Oak, Soquel, and Aptos areas, as well as the City of Capitola. The SCCSD has no wastewater treatment plant of its own. Consequently, sewage is transported from its Lode Street facility to the SC WWTF for treatment and disposal. The SC WWTF is owned and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems operated by the City of Santa Cruz. The SC WWTF serves the City of Santa Cruz, and the SCCD service area, including portions of Live Oak, Capitola, Soquel, and Aptos. The SCCSD has treatment capacity rights of 8 million gallons per day at the SC WWTF. The SC WWTF’s design, average dry weather treatment capacity is 17 mgd, with a design peak wet weather treatment capacity of 81 mgd. Treated effluent from the SC WWTF (and also from the Scotts Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility) is discharged to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary through an ocean outfall over a mile offshore (SCCDPW, 2018a; CCRWQCB; 2017). Stormwater The Santa Cruz County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SCCFCWCD) is responsible for flood protection and stormwater drainage planning and infrastructure in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. The SCCFCWCD, which is operated through the Santa Cruz County Public Works, Planning, and Environmental Health Departments, is divided into eight flood control zones. Zones 1, 2, and 3 are inactive while Zone 4 performs watershed enhancement activities countywide, such as review of timber harvest plans, log-jam removal from streams, and conjunctive water use studies. The other four zones actively maintain and operate the flood control and stormwater drainage infrastructure for the County. The Project sites are in Zones 5 and 6. Stormwater drainage and flood control facilities within these zones include underground stormwater drainage systems and above ground ditches and natural watercourses. The SCCFCWCD has experienced numerous flooding events of varying magnitudes in each zone. Severe flooding in creeks can occur when debris collects in the channel and blocks the downstream flow of water. In urban areas, overflowing ditches and plugged drop inlet grates are the primary concern. Solid Waste Management Santa Cruz County Recycling and Solid Waste Services (SCCRSWS) is responsible for the operation and administration of solid waste diversion and disposal in unincorporated areas of the County (SCCDPW, 2018b). The County of Santa Cruz accepts over 450 tons of refuse on a daily basis. The Buena Vista landfill is within the County’s jurisdiction (SCCDPW, 2018c) and solid waste generated by Project construction or operation could be disposed of at the landfill or otherwise diverted. The SCCRSWS is responsible for operation of the landfill; development of programs designed to meet statewide diversion goals and other mandates; implementation of the County’s Zero Waste Plan; landfill design and engineering; liaison and reporting to a variety of state and federal agencies regarding solid waste facilities compliance and pollution control programs; heavy equipment fleet maintenance, administration of garbage and recycling collection franchise services, and advance planning for future solid waste and recycling program and facilities (SCCDPW, 2018b). The Buena Vista Landfill accepts an average of 350 tons of refuse daily. The Buena Vista Landfill is a Class III landfill operating under the State of California Solid Waste Facilities Permit from the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Materials accepted at the Buena Vista Landfill include Class III non-hazardous residential, commercial, and industrial waste; dewatered sewage sludge; and low-level petroleum-contaminated soils Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems (SCCDPW, 2018c). The facility is permitted to accept a maximum throughput of 838 tons per day and has an estimated remaining capacity of approximately 3 million cubic yards (MCY) with an approximate expected closure date of 2031 (CalRecycle, 2018a). The Monterey Regional Waste Management District manages the Monterey Peninsula’s solid waste collection, disposal and recycling system. It also receives and processes most of Monterey County’s sewage sludge from the adjacent MRWPCA Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The service area encompasses the cities of Capitola, Moss Landing, Castroville, Marina, Seaside, Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Monterey, Monterey-Salinas Highway area, Pacific Grove, Pebble Beach, Carmel, Unincorporated Carmel, Carmel Valley, Carmel Highlands, & Big Sur (City of Capitola, 2014; MRWMD, 2018a). The Waste Management District operates the Monterey Peninsula Landfill, a materials recovery facility, and a transfer station at a 475-acre site north of the city of Marina. Some of the solid waste generated by Project construction or operation could be disposed of at the landfill or diverted for recycling or reuse at the materials recovery facility. The landfill operates 6 days per week and is permitted to receive a maximum throughput of 3,500 tons of waste per day; it has a remaining capacity of approximately 48.6 MCY and is expected to reach its permitted capacity in 2107 (CalRecycle, 2018b). The landfill receives approximately 490,000 tons of waste per year, which averages to about 1,300 tons per day (MRWMD, 2016). In addition to the more commonly recycled and reused materials (such as paper, cardboard, bottles, and cans), materials targeted by operators at the materials recovery facility include commercial waste, wood waste, and yard waste, construction and demolition debris, and materials in self-haul loads (MRWMD, 2015; MRWMD, 2018b). 4.17.3 Regulatory Framework Federal Regulations No federal regulations related to utilities and service systems apply to the Project. State Regulations Santa Cruz County Landfill Ban On June 21, 2005 the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors voted to ban the disposal of recyclable materials in the Buena Vista Landfill and created new requirements for County residents and businesses to recycle. The landfill ban and list of recyclable materials prohibited are provided in the Santa Cruz County Code, Title 7, Health and Safety, Chapter 7.20. The list covers a variety of household and commercial wastes, ranging from yard waste and newspapers, to concrete and electronic waste, among many others. The ban further provides that if the director of SCCDPW determines that a particular recyclable material cannot be recycled for a specific time period, then the director may permit the disposal of said recyclable material at any county disposal facility for that time period. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems Santa Cruz County Zero Waste Plan In 2015, the County of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works published the Zero Waste Plan. The Plan is intended to guide County officials in the planning & decision making process to achieve Zero Waste goals. The Plan outlines several strategies and initiatives aimed at moving the County towards a zero waste future. These include: 1. Supporting legislation and adopting policies that require minimized environmental impacts and reduce the waste stream; 2. Ensuring that facilities and infrastructure are in place to properly manage all recovered materials; 3. Continuing to implement activities and programs that support the County’s Zero Waste Policy; 4. Fostering sustainable green practices and business; and 5. Educating and engaging businesses, organizations, public agencies and residents to encourage zero waste behavior change (SCCDPW, 2015). County of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Program The following objectives and policies relating to utilities and service systems from the County of Santa Cruz General Plan and Local Coastal Plan apply to this Project: Objective 7.18a Domestic Water Service (LCP) To ensure a dependable supply of high quality domestic water to meet the needs of communities that obtain water service from municipal water systems, County water districts and small water systems. Policy 7.18.4 Improvement of Water Systems (LCP) Support water system improvement programs for storage, treatment and distribution facilities to meet necessary water supply and fire suppression requirements. Policy 7.18.7 Water Reuse (LCP) Encourage the reuse and recycling of water where feasible and where reuse will not have a negative impact on public health or the environment, including the use of greywater systems, and recycling of irrigation water for irrigation purposes as acceptable to Environmental Health Services, State Department of Health Services, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Objective 7.22 Wastewater Reclamation and Energy Conservation (LCP) To maximize the energy efficiency and potential for energy conversion and resource recovery of sewage treatment in Santa Cruz county. Policy 7.22.1 Wastewater Reclamation and Reuse Projects Promote the reclamation and reuse of energy, water and nutrients in wastewater management, and give funding priority to reclamation and reuse projects in capital expenditures for wastewater management. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems City of Santa Cruz Local Coastal Program The following policies relating to utilities and service systems from the City of Santa Cruz Local Coastal Plan apply to this Project: H: Wastewater Treatment 7.2 Maintain and upgrade the wastewater collection and treatment system in an environmentally sound and fiscally efficient manner, as needed, due to increases in population, unit flows, and changes in land use. 7.3.1 Develop and implement wastewater reclamation activities (including the encouragement of private on-site wastewater reclamation) for irrigation and other uses to help conserve the City’s water supply. City of Santa Cruz General Plan The following goals and policies relating to utilities and service systems from the City of Santa Cruz General Plan apply to this Project: Goal CC 4: A sustainable and efficient wastewater system CC4.1: Provide an adequate and environmentally sound wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal system. CC4.2: Maintain secondary wastewater treatment and explore the potential for tertiary treatment. CC4.3: Explore the potential for recycling wastewater. Goal CC6: Minimal solid waste production CC6.1: Lead the community in recycling and in reducing waste in an effort to achieve the goal of Zero Waste. CC6.1.4: Adopt an ordinance to require commercial and industrial recycling. CC6.1.6: Develop a program that results in recycling all cement and asphalt concrete when removed. City of Capitola General Plan The following goals and policies relating to utilities and service systems from the City of Capitola General Plan apply to this Project: Goal OSC-11: Reduce solid waste originating in Capitola Policy OSC-11.1: Solid Waste Diversion. Work with Green Waste Recovery to increase community diversion of solid waste to 60 percent by 2020. Policy OSC-11.3: Demolition Material Recycling. Continue to require mandatory recycling of building demolition materials. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.17.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Criteria In accordance with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant impact on Utilities and Service Systems if it would: • Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); • Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects; • 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; • Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or if new or expanded entitlements are needed; • Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments; • Be served by a landfill with insufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs; or • Fail to comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Approach to Analysis This section specifically addresses impacts on public utilities and landfills. Wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB are addressed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources Surface Water. This analysis of impacts on public utilities and services systems encompasses temporary construction-related impacts, as well as potential long-term impacts on utilities associated with future operations. This analysis evaluates potential impacts related to landfill capacity and compliance with solid waste statutes and regulations based on the estimated construction waste that would be generated at each of the proposed sites, and the current estimate of available capacity at the Buena Vista and Monterey Peninsula Landfills. Areas of No Project Impact Due to the nature of the Project, this EIR does not analyze the following criteria for the reasons described below: • Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The primary purpose of the Project is the construction of new water treatment facilities for advanced water purification. Accordingly, the potential environmental effects of constructing and operating these facilities are the primary subject of this EIR. Significant effects that could result from the Project are addressed in the topical sections of Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems this EIR that correspond to those types of effects. Therefore, this criterion is not addressed further in this section. • Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. The Project does not propose to construct or expand stormwater drainage facilities. As discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources - Surface Water, Project implementation would not substantially increase the rate or amount of stormwater runoff. Thus, Project implementation would not cause an exceedance of existing stormwater drainage capacity that would necessitate the construction or expansion of infrastructure. Thus, the criterion related to the construction or expansion of stormwater drainage facilities is not discussed further in this report. Impact Summary A summary of the impact conclusions is presented in Table 4.17-1. The detailed impact discussion follows. TABLE 4.17-1 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Significance Determinations Impacts Impact 4.17-1: The Project would not exceed water treatment requirements or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that there is insufficient capacity to serve the project. LS Impact 4.17-2: The Project would not have sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements. LS Impact 4.17-3: Disposal of project-related construction waste would not result in adverse effects on landfill capacity and conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations. LS NOTE: LS = Less than Significant impact, no mitigation proposed Impact Discussion Impact 4.17-1: The Project would not exceed water treatment requirements or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that there is insufficient capacity to serve the Project. (Less than Significant) Construction During Project construction, dust abatement, pipe flushing, and equipment testing would account for the majority of water required for treatment and conveyance facility construction. As discussed in Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources - Surface Water (Impact 4.11-1), water utilized or produced during construction and dewatering would be disposed in accordance with the General WDRs NPDES General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-20170042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001) and the NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Order No. R3-2014-0194-DWQ, NPDES No. CAG140001), as applicable. As needed, onsite treatment, such as a baker tank or settling basin, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems would be used to ensure turbidity is within the allowable discharge levels. Depending upon turbidity levels, pumping development and pump testing water may be able to be discharged without treatment. Dechlorination of flushing and disinfection fluids would be required before discharge to storm drain. Drilling fluid, fluids displaced during well construction (gravel packing), sealing, and initial development water would be stored in tanks on-site during construction and then disposed off-site at an authorized disposal facility. As explained further in Section 4.11, through adherence to applicable regulations, Project construction would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements. Substantial sewer discharges are not anticipated during construction, and therefore would not be expected to exceed wastewater treatment provider capacities. For these reasons, Project construction would be expected to have a less-than-significant effect related to exceeding water treatment requirements or wastewater treatment provider capacities. Operation The primary waste streams from Project operations would be the ultrafiltration (UF) or microfiltration (MF) waste, and brine generated from the reverse osmosis (RO) process. The MF/UF waste along with all other waste streams, including that generated by existing and additional District operations staff, except for brine would be sent to SC WWTF via the existing sewer. In a separate pipeline brine from the treatment system would be sent to the SC WWTF where it would be blended with treated effluent for disposal via the existing ocean outfall. Based on the RO recovery rate, the AWPF would produce approximately 0.56 mgd of waste residuals (0.26 mgd of MF waste and 0.3 mgd of brine). The SC WWTF has an average dry weather design capacity of 17 mgd and was designed to treat up to 81 mgd during peak hour wet weather. The 2014 SC WWTF average daily flow rate was approximately 8.1 mgd with a peak wet weather flow of about 65.0 mgd; the addition of the waste stream from the AWPF would not exceed that capacity of the SC WWTF or outfall during dry or wet weather. The Project would reduce the overall volume of treated effluent discharged into Monterey Bay via the SC WWTF outfall. As explained further in Section 4.11 (Impact 4.11-2), the Project would be required to comply with applicable regulations governing operational discharges, including the Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) (General Permit) (Order No. 20130001-DWQ Permit No. CAS000004) and Project-specific amendment to the existing SC WWTF NPDES permit (Order No. R3-2017-0030, NPDES No. CA 0048194). Through adherence to these requirements, Project operations would not exceed treatment requirements. For these reasons, Project operations would be expected to have a less-than-significant effect related to exceeding water treatment requirements or wastewater treatment provider capacities. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.17-2: The Project would have sufficient water supplies from existing entitlements and resources, and would not require new or expanded entitlements. (Less than Significant) Construction phase water supply needs would be for dust abatement, pipe flushing, equipment testing and well drilling during construction (see Chapter 3, Table 3-8 for a summary of water requirements), and for potential water faucets and bathrooms facilities during operations. This Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems water would be provided by the District and can be accomplished within its existing available water supply. The District and City of Santa Cruz have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) regarding the provision of secondary effluent from the SC WWTF for the Project’s operational source water. The MOU is intended to provide a framework for negotiation of a Project Agreement and does not create a binding contractual obligation. Because the MOU is not binding, the District and City of Santa Cruz intend to address rights to use wastewater in the forthcoming Project Agreement. However, the MOU does provide information from the City of Santa Cruz regarding the availability of source water and acknowledges that use of approximately 1.6 MGD of secondary treated effluent represents approximately 20% of the Santa Cruz WWTF average daily flow rates. The City indicates that the volume of the District’s proposed use would leave an adequate effluent supply available in the event the City determines that it needs or wants to develop recycled water for City use. As noted in the MOU, the SC WWTF represents the sole source of secondary effluent that would be suitable for the District’s use in an AWPF. For this reason, the City of Santa Cruz has expressed its belief that “…it is appropriate and necessary that the City should provide reasonable assurances to the District regarding the availability of a source of supply for any advanced water purification recycled project it may choose to pursue…” (Bernal, 2016; District, 2017). Although the Project Agreement is needed to secure these water rights, the MOU demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that this source of water can be obtained. Pursuant to the MOU and the Project design, Project operation would not require more water supply than would be available through the Project Agreement, nor would it require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements; therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact related to source water supply availability. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Impact 4.17-3: Disposal of Project-related construction waste would not result in adverse effects on landfill capacity and conflict with solid waste statutes and regulations. (Less than Significant) Construction Excavation and construction activities would generate excess soil, rock, construction material and debris. Although suitable topsoil and subsoils excavated during construction would be used to backfill excavations and restore work areas, Project construction is projected to generate excess material that would require off-site disposal at the Buena Vista Landfill or other nearby landfill (e.g., the Monterey Peninsula Landfill). The Project could generate a maximum of 142,000 CY of excess spoils and construction debris. If any soil contaminated with hazardous materials were encountered, it would be characterized, transported and disposed of at an appropriate landfill in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. Refer to Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for a more Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems detailed discussion of the handling of hazardous materials generated by or encountered during Project construction. The projected capacity life for the Buena Vista Landfill and the Monterey Peninsula Landfill is through 2031 and through 2107, respectively. Given the remaining capacity of these landfills (3 MCY and 48.5 MCY, respectively), disposed of excess spoils and construction debris at the Buena Vista or Monterey Peninsula Landfills would not cause the landfill to exceed capacity. Nevertheless, if the full 142,000 cubic yards were disposed of at the Buena Vista Landfill, the remaining capacity of the landfill would be depleted by approximately 0.6 percent. The construction contractor(s) would be required to dispose of solid waste in accordance with all applicable laws. As noted in Section 4.17.3, Regulatory Framework, landfills are required to comply with state-mandated reductions in solid waste generation under AB 939. The Buena Vista Landfill is also required to enforce the AB 341 goal of achieving a 75 percent reduction in landfill disposal by 2020. Further, the Santa Cruz County landfill ban prohibits the disposal of recyclable materials, including construction wastes such as concrete and asphalt, in the County’s solid waste facilities unless it is determined that a particular recyclable material cannot be recycled for a specific time period, in which case the disposal of said recyclable material would be permitted for that time period. It is unknown whether a substantial amount of the expected construction solid waste can be reused. Regardless, if the all construction waste were disposed of at the Buena Vista Landfill, it would represent a negligible amount of the remaining landfill capacity. If another area landfill were to be used instead, it can similarly be assumed that the required Project waste would represent a negligible amount of the remaining landfill capacity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Operation Once constructed, operation of the pumps, conveyance pipelines, and recharge wells would not generate solid waste, except for that resulting from occasional minor servicing and/or replacement of equipment parts, and grounds maintenance. Operation of the AWPF would result in the generation of various municipal wastes normally associated with administrative operations (e.g., misc. paper, plastic, metal, food, grounds management). Purification facility components would also require periodic replacement (e.g., RO membrane replacement every 6-7 years). Accordingly, AWPF operation would generate approximately 11 pounds of waste per day, or approximately 11 CY per year (CalRecycle, 2010; 2018c). Given the small amount of solid waste that would be generated relative to the above-described remaining capacity of nearby landfills, Project operation and maintenance activities would not contribute substantial amounts of solid wastes which could exceed remaining landfill capacity. For these reasons, operational impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems 4.17.5 References – Utilities and Service Systems Bernal, Martin. Letter to Ron Duncan entitled “Wastewater Effluent from City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility”. June 29, 2016. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), 2010. Diversion Study Guide, Appendix I. Conversion Factors; Glass, Plastic Paper, and Cardboard. Available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/dsg/IRecycl.htm. Accessed on May 21, 2018. ———, 2018a. Facility/Site Summary Details: Buena Vista Drive Sanitary Landfill (44-AA0004). Available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/44-AA-0004/ Detail/. Accessed on February 5, 2018. ———, 2018b. Facility/Site Summary Details: Monterey Peninsula Landfill (27-AA-0010). Available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/27-AA-0010/Detail/. Accessed on February 5, 2018. ———, 2018c. Business Group Waste Stream Calculation. Available at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/BusinessGroupCalculator. Accessed on May 21, 2018. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), 2017. Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility Discharge to the Pacific Ocean (Order No. R3-2071-0030, NPDES No. CA0048194). Adopted December 7, 2017. City of Capitola Community Development, 2014. Capitola General Plan. Adopted June 26, 2014. City of Santa Cruz, 2016. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. County of Santa Cruz Department of Public Works (SCCDPW), 2015. Zero Waste Plan for Santa Cruz County. Available at http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=A6W1_ m2XuNA%3d&tabid=3816&portalid=19. Accessed on February 10, 2018. ———, 2018a. Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (SCCSD) General Information. Available at http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Home/Sanitation/SanitationDistrictSantaCruzCounty (SCCSD)/GeneralInformation.aspx. Accessed on February 5, 2018. ———, 2018b. Recycling and Solid Waste. Available at http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/Home/ RecyclingSolidWaste.aspx. Accessed on February 5, 2018. ———, 2018c. Recycling and Disposal Facilities. Available at http://dpw.co.santa-cruz.ca.us/ Home/RecyclingSolidWaste/RecyclingandDisposalFacilities.aspx. Accessed on February 5, 2018. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2017. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/sites/default/files/documents/MOU_with_City-of-SantaCruz-re-Pure-Water-Soquel_Signed.pdf. July 21, 2017. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 4. Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures 4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ———, 2018. Facts, Figures, and Maps. Available at http://www.soquelcreekwater.org/who-weare/facts-figures-and-maps. Accessed on February 11, 2018. Monterey Regional Waste Management District (MRWMD), 2015. 2015 Annual Report. ———, 2016. 65 Years of Turning Waste into Resources Monterey Peninsula Landfill 2016 Annual Report. Available at http://www.mrwmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/mrwmdannual-report-2016-final.pdf. ———, 2018a. Disposal Services. Available at http://www.mrwmd.org/disposal/. Accessed on February 6, 2018. ———, 2018b. Construction and Demolition Recycling at the Monterey Regional Waste Management District Materials Recovery Facility. Brochure. Available at http://www.mrwmd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/mrf-CD-brochure-Revised-with-CalGreen-MRF-Closure-1.pdf. Accessed on February 6, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 4.17-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 5 Cumulative Impacts 5.1 Overview of Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts, as defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, refer to two or more individual effects that, when taken together, are “considerable” or that compound or increase other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions when added to the impacts of other closely related past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects. Pertinent guidance for cumulative impact analysis is provided in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, which states: • An EIR shall discuss cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effects are “cumulatively considerable” (i.e., the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in combination with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects, including those outside the control of the agency, if necessary). • An EIR should not discuss impacts that do not result in part from implementation of the Project being evaluated in the EIR. • A Project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable, and thus not significant, if the Project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. • The discussion of cumulative impact severity and likelihood of occurrence need not be as detailed as that presented for effects attributable to the Project alone. • The focus of analysis should be on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute, rather than on attributes of the other projects that do not contribute to the cumulative impact. The analysis of cumulative effects associated with the Pure Water Soquel Project (Project) along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects is provided below. The analysis is organized by topical section, as presented in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures. Where appropriate, additional measures are identified to mitigate potentially significant cumulative impacts. 5.1.1 Approach to Cumulative Impact Analysis Two approaches to a cumulative impact analysis are discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b)(1): (a) the analysis can be based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, or (b) a summary of projections contained in a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts general plan or related planning document or in an adopted or certified environmental document that described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact can be used to determine cumulative impacts. This EIR employs the list-based approach. The following factors were used to determine an appropriate list of projects to be considered in this cumulative analysis: • Similar Environmental Impacts. A relevant project would contribute to effects on resources also affected by the Pure Water Soquel Project. A relevant future project is defined as one that is “reasonably foreseeable,” such as a project that has approved funding or for which an application has been filed with the approving agency. • Geographic Scope and Location. A relevant project is within the defined geographic scope for the cumulative effect. • Timing and Duration of Implementation. The effects of relevant projects (e.g., short-term construction or demolition, or long-term operations) could coincide in terms of timing with the effects of the Pure Water Soquel Project. Similar Environmental Impacts Projects that are relevant to the cumulative analysis include those that could contribute incremental effects on the same environmental resources that would be affected directly or indirectly by the Pure Water Soquel Project. The cumulative impact discussions in Sections 5.2.2 through 5.2.17 of this chapter analyze the cumulative impacts that could occur when the effects of the Pure Water Soquel Project are combined with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Because these other projects are subject to independent environmental review and approval processes, funding constraints, or other challenges, it is possible that some of the projects identified as reasonably foreseeable future projects will not be approved or will be modified prior to approval (e.g., as a result of the CEQA alternatives analysis process or permitting requirements). For the purpose of assessing the most conservative cumulative impacts, however, the cumulative impact analysis in this EIR is premised on the approval and implementation of all of the reasonably foreseeable projects identified in this analysis. Geographic Scope and Location The geographic scope of the cumulative projects is delineated based on the resource topic affected and is described under each topical section below. For each resource, the geographic scope of analysis is based on the natural boundaries and physical conditions relevant to the resource affected, rather than jurisdictional boundaries. The geographic scope of cumulative effects often extends beyond the scope of the direct impacts, but not beyond the scope of the indirect impacts of the project and alternatives. Timing and Duration of Implementation Construction of the Pure Water Soquel Project could span up to 36 months, and could begin as early as spring of 2019 through spring of 2022; operation and maintenance activities would occur thereafter (refer to Section 3.6.7 in Chapter 3, Project Description). Potential temporary (e.g., Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts construction-related noise and vibration) and permanent (e.g., nighttime lighting) Pure Water Soquel impacts are considered in the cumulative impacts analysis if they could combine (in space and time) with similar impacts of cumulative projects identified in Table 5-1. 5.1.2 List of Relevant Projects Table 5-1 lists the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects and activities within and near the Project area and provides brief descriptions of the projects and their expected schedules. The list of projects was developed by reviewing public agency websites, information provided by potentially affected agencies during the scoping process, and researching other projects known to be in the planning or development phase. Table 5-1 also identifies project status and estimated cumulative project construction schedules, where available. The following cumulative impact analysis conservatively assumes that approved projects whose construction schedules are unknown would be constructed during the anticipated Project construction phase (i.e., between spring of 2019 and spring of 2022). Figure 5-1 shows the general location of the cumulative projects listed. 5.2 Cumulative Impacts and Mitigation Measures This section presents the cumulative impact analysis for the Pure Water Soquel Project by environmental resource topic. Each impact discussion assesses whether the incremental effects of the Pure Water Soquel Project could combine with similar effects of one or more of the projects identified in Table 5-1 to cause or contribute to a significant cumulative effect. If so, the analysis considers whether the incremental contribution of the Pure Water Soquel Project would be cumulatively significant. 5.2.1 Summary of Impacts A summary of cumulative impacts by topic is provided in Table 5-2. The detailed cumulative impact analysis is presented under each resource topic in the subsections that follow. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 5-1 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS No. Planning Jurisdiction/ Location Project Description Project Status City of Santa Cruz 1 215 Beach Street La Bahia Hotel – Demolish an existing 44-unit residential complex and construct a 165-room hotel with conference and banquet space, restaurant, retail space, and spa facilities Approved 2 550 2nd Street Lanai Lodge Hotel – Demolish a 20-room hotel and construct a new 60-room hotel Approved 3 555 Pacific Avenue Mixed Use Project – Construct a four-story building with 94 residential Small Ownership Units (SOUs) and 5,055 square feet of ground floor commercial space Under construction 4 307-313-321-335 Riverside Avenue Courtyard Marriot Hotel – Demolish three hotels and construct a new 151-room hotel Under construction 5 350 Ocean Street Affordable Housing Project – Construct 63 low-income residential apartment units and 6,700 square feet of commercial space Approved 6 407 Broadway Avenue Hyatt Place Hotel – Construct a 106-room hotel Complete 7 1800 Soquel Avenue Soquel Avenue Mixed Use – Demolish the existing commercial buildings and construct 32 residential condominium units and two ground floor commercial condominium units within two, three-story buildings Approved 8 515 Soquel Avenue Soquel Avenue Apartments – Construct a four-story structure with 51 single-room-occupancy units Approved 9 Railroad right-of-way between Natural Bridges Drive and Pacific Avenue Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network (Coastal Rail Trail) – Construct a paved, 12- to 16-foot wide multi-use path. Trail to be built in two phases: 1) from Natural Bridges Drive to Bay/California and 2) from Bay/California to Pacific Avenue near the wharf Construction of the Phase 1 portion is estimated to start in the Summer of 2018 and last approximately 6 months. Construction of Phase 2 is estimated to start in the Fall/Winter of 2018 and last 9-12 months. 10 1547 Pacific Avenue Mixed Use Project – Construct a five-story building with basement and first-floor parking, 5,959 square feet of commercial space fronting Pacific Avenue and Cedar Street, and 63 residential condominiums on the upper floors Under construction 11 Delaware Street, between Swift Street and Natural Bridges Drive Delaware Addition – Major modification to revise/reconfigure the site plan of an approved Planned Development (05-0285) for 400,000 sq. ft. industrial and up to 248 residential units. To be developed in phases 1A, 1B, 2, and 3 Approved (Phase 1A complete) Development of 10-unit condominium complex Application pending City of Capitola 12 4199 and 4205 Clares Street County of Santa Cruz 13 41st Avenue/Soquel Drive Auxiliary Lanes and Chanticleer Bike/Pedestrian Overcrossing Highway 1 Corridor Improvements – Construct auxiliary lanes and construct bicycle/pedestrian overcrossing near Chanticleer Avenue Planning(Construction estimated 2019-2021) 14 Southwest corner of the intersection of Soquel Drive and 41st Avenue in Soquel. Nissan of Santa Cruz – Construct a 12,551-square-foot automobile dealership with a separate 9,996-square-foot automobile service building Approved Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 5-1 (CONTINUED) CUMULATIVE PROJECTS No. Planning Jurisdiction/ Location Project Description Project Status County of Santa Cruz (cont.) 15 2901 Center Street, Soquel Multi-family Development – Demolition of existing garage structure and construction of eight new condominiums. Application pending 16 Near College Lake, Watsonville College Lake Integrated Resources Management Project –The primary purpose of the proposed project is to help balance the groundwater basin, prevent further seawater intrusion, and meet the water supply needs in Pajaro Valley’s Water's service area, by developing College Lake as a water storage and supply source. Planning 17 Near Watsonville Airport, Watsonville Watsonville Airport Groundwater Recharge Project – Install an intake structure for a MaxWell Plus Drainage (drywell) system in an existing swale to assist in addressing the 12,000 ac-ft. of annual overdraft in the Pajaro Basin to decrease the downstream impacts of surface flow generated from impermeable surfaces and directed from surrounding developed neighborhoods onto the Watsonville airport Planning 18 South of SR 192 and Carlton Road intersection, Watsonville Pajaro Valley Groundwater Recharge Project – Construct a one-acre sediment basin and an adjacent four-acre groundwater recharge basin. The proposed project involves up to 80,000 cy of grading. The goal of the proposed project is to collect and infiltrate an estimated 350 acre feet per year of runoff into the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Basin. Planning 19 Various – City and County of Santa Cruz Cooperative Water Transfer, Groundwater Recharge, and Resource Management Pilot Project & Santa Cruz Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC) Recommendations Planning Pilot Project: City of Santa Cruz Water Department and Soquel Creek Water District entered into a 5-year agreement under the which the City will transfer available winter supply from Majors Creek and Liddell Springs to the District under a resource management pilot program. The project also considers potential future extension of the agreement beyond the 5-yr pilot period. Under certain conditions, winter water will be directed from existing intakes on Liddell Spring and/or Majors Creek through the City's system (north coast piping, coast pump station, Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant, and potable water distribution system) to existing metered interties with the District. No physical improvements to the City's or District's systems are required for this project. Additionally, the source water is from the city's pre-1914 appropriative water rights; the amount of water transferred will be approximately 352 afy, within the range of what has been delivered to and used in the city in the past. WSAC Recommendations: In furtherance of the recommendations from its October 2015 WSAC Final Report and Recommendations, the City of Santa Cruz is evaluating a range of options to secure its water supply. These options include additional conservation efforts, groundwater storage/in-lieu water exchanges and aquifer storage and recovery, among other measures. The Santa Cruz City Council is anticipated to make a selection on which water supply alternative to proceed with at the end of 2020. 20 Various – City and County of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County Sanitation District, Secondary Force Main Project The Santa Cruz County Sanitation District (SCCSD) owns and operates the D.A Porath pump station and force main that together serve as the only wastewater conveyance system to the City of Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility (SC WWTF). Due to the age of the force main (approximately 40 years), and the lack of conveyance system redundancy, the SCCSD is considering a secondary force main project to convey wastewater from the D.A. Porath pump station to the SC WWTF. The project is in the planning stages, with the SCCSD presently considering various pipeline alignment and installation options. However, given the project location and extent (i.e., approximately 5.5 miles of new pipeline), it is possible that portions of the force main project area could overlap with those of the proposed project area. Planning (construction estimated to begin around 2023) County of Monterey 21 Dolan Road, near Moss Landing Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Deep Water Desal: Monterey Bay Regional Water Project – Construction of a 15-mgd seawater desalination facility located on a 110-acre site in Moss Landing, on Dolan Road, approximately 1 mile east of the Moss Landing Power Plant 5-5 Planning ESA / 160164 June 2018 7 Soquel Avenue Mixed Use 13 Hwy 1 Corridor Improvements 1 La Bahia Hotel 8 Soquel Avenue Apartments 14 Nissan of Santa Cruz 2 Lanai Lodge Hotel 3 Mixed Use Project 4 Courtyard Marriot Hotel 5 Affordable Housing Project 6 Hyatt Place Hotel 9 Monterey Bay Sancturary Scenic Trail Network (Coastal Rail Trail) Pajaro Valley Groundwater 15 2901 Center Street College Lake Integrated Resources 16 Management Project 10 Mixed Use Projects 11 Delaware Addition _ ^ Water Treatment Facility (Options) 18 Recharge Project Cooperative Water Transfer, Groundwater Recharge, and 19 Resource Management Pilot Project # 20 Secondary Force Main Project Recharge Well (Options) Purified Water (Proposed) Purified Water (Options) Secondary or Tertiary Effluent and Brine Concentrate Line (Options) 21 Deep Water Desal Watsonville Airport Groundwater Ä Å 17 17 Recharge Project 12 4199 and 4205 Clares Street Soquel Å Ä Chanticleer Site QU SO E AV EL 14 Å^ Ä _ 1 13 1 12 SCC R U V 1 _ ^ R 4 3 9 30TH AVE AVE 19 T DS 2N R SCC R 1 A TOL POR # E AV Aptos RR Capitola CAPITOLA RD 5 LAUREL ST Santa Cruz 2 WWTF SCC 7T H 68 CAPITOLA RD ## 41ST AVE AV E IC PACIF 1 Cabrillo College South # RK PA 10 Å Ä Willowbrook Park Cabrillo College North Twin Lakes Church Monterey St Santa Cruz # _ ^ 15 Å Ä 7 WATER ST West Annex Site PORTER ST 9 CAPIT OLA A VE Cumulative Projects PO DR O RT LA DR 17 « ¬ Santa Cruz SANTA CLARA COUNTY SANTA CRUZ 1 COUNTY « ¬ ¬ « 152 Live Oak 16 17 20 18 Watsonville 11 SAN BENITO COUNTY 1 « ¬ Moss 21 Landing MONTEREY Castroville COUNTY ¬ « 183 0 0.5 Miles SOURCE: ESA, 2018; SqCWD, 2017 101 £ ¤ 1 ¬ « Pure Water Soquel: Groundwater Replenishment and Seawater Intrusion Prevention. 160164 Figure 5-1 Cumulative Projects 5. Cumulative Impacts TABLE 5-2 SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Significance Determination Impact Cumulative impacts related to aesthetic resources LS Cumulative impacts related to air quality LS Cumulative impacts related to biological resources LS Cumulative impacts related to cultural resources LS Cumulative impacts related to energy LS Cumulative impacts related to geology and paleontology LS Cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions LS Cumulative impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials LS Cumulative impacts related to hydrology - surface water LS Cumulative impacts related to hydrology – groundwater LS Cumulative impacts related to land use and recreation LS Cumulative impacts related to noise and vibration SUa Cumulative impacts related to population and housing LS Cumulative impacts related to transportation and traffic LSM Cumulative impacts related to tribal cultural resources LS Cumulative impacts related to utilities LS NOTES: LS = Less-than-significant cumulative impact, no mitigation required LSM = Less-than-significant cumulative impact, with mitigation incorporated SU = Significant and unavoidable cumulative impact for which no mitigation is available SUM = Significant and unavoidable impact with implementation of feasible mitigation measures a. The analysis concludes the Project could have a cumulatively significant and unavoidable noise impact during construction, and a cumulatively less-than-significant noise impact during operation. 5.2.2 Aesthetic Resources Impact CU-AES: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to aesthetic resources. (Less than Significant) The scope and analysis for cumulative impacts on aesthetic resources encompasses the locations from which a viewer could see the Project construction or operations elements along with views of other projects in the cumulative scenario. A significant cumulative effect on aesthetic resources would result if the effects of the Project combined in space and time with those of cumulative projects to cause substantial degradation of the same scenic resources. A significant cumulative effect related to light and glare would result if the effects of the Project combined in space and time with those of other cumulative projects to cause substantial nuisance or hazard conditions on the same light-sensitive receptor. Projects in the cumulative scenario (Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15) would have construction impacts that could combine with those of the Project to affect the aesthetics of the Project area Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts (see Table 5-1 and Figure 5-1). Construction activities at nearby project sites could be noticeable and visually unappealing, as seen by users of nearby public spaces. However, construction-phase impacts would generally be confined in extent to the immediate work areas. In addition, the impacts would be limited to periods of a few days to weeks along pipeline alignments, and roughly 12 to 36 months at the sites of above-ground facilities. Therefore, the Project’s impacts would not combine with those of cumulative projects to result in a substantial degradation of the visual character or quality of the sites because they would not permanently and/or substantially alter scenic resources or the aesthetic character of the Project area. The impact would be less than significant. Projects in the cumulative scenario (Nos. 9 and 13) would have post-construction impacts that would occur in proximity to those of the Project. Cumulative project No. 9 would involve the creation of a new trail along the railroad between Bay Street and the SC WWTF. However, as described in Section 4.2, Aesthetics, Project components at the SC WWTF would be visually consistent with the other existing facilities on site and not conspicuous from public areas beyond, including the adjacent La Barranca Park. Similarly, Cumulative project No. 13 would involve the construction of a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing in the vicinity of the Chanticleer Site. The overcrossing at this location would appear similar to other crossings in the area, only narrower (Caltrans, 2013). As discussed in Section 4.2, the Project components proposed for the Chanticleer Site would be finished in a manner that would be similar to the nearby Sherriff’s office. As the Chanticleer Site is not scenic in nature and is in an area of low visual sensitivity, and given the proposed and cumulative project components would be compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding built environment, the combined effect would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 4.2, the Project would not utilize equipment, building materials, or building finishes that would be substantial sources of glare. Permanent security lighting would be installed at the Chanticleer or Headquarters-West Annex Sites. The only cumulative project in the vicinity of these sites is Cumulative project No. 13. Security lighting at the Chanticleer Site would be in keeping with existing lighting at other nearby commercial and institutional properties, in addition to roadway lighting. Any lighting for the Cumulative project No. 13 would be expected to comply with the California Department of Transportation’s Traffic Manual’s guidelines for traffic lighting, which typically calls for safety lighting along State highways to be full-cutoff type, meaning the light is focused downward, minimizing glare and spillover (Caltrans, 1996). For these reasons, the light and glare from these projects would not combine to cause a nuisance or hazard condition, and the cumulative effect would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts 5.2.3 Air Quality Impact CU-AQ: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to air quality. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope of analysis for potential cumulative air quality impacts is the North Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin). In developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, MBARD considered the emission levels for which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively significant. Based on MBARD thresholds and CEQA guidance, if individual Project emissions would exceed the identified significance thresholds, a significant cumulative air quality impact would occur and the Project’s contribution to the cumulative impact would be considered significant. If Project emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds, the Project’s incremental contribution to any potential cumulative impact would not be significant. As indicated in Section 4.3, Air Quality (Table 4.3-2), the air basin does not attain the State standards for ozone or PM 10 ; however, it attains (or is unclassified for) all federal standards. Therefore, existing conditions in the Air Basin are considered to be cumulatively significant with respect to attaining the State standards for ozone and PM 10 . Cumulative Construction Impacts The air quality construction thresholds established by MBARD were designed for the Air Basin and are intended to address the incremental contributions of individual projects on the quality of the air basin as a whole. Therefore, conformance with the MBARD thresholds ensures that an individual project would not have a cumulative impact with respect to overall air quality within the Air Basin. With regard to emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter (both PM 10 and PM 2.5 ), Project emissions would be below the established MBARD thresholds; therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution of construction-related ROG, CO, PM 10 , and PM 2.5 emissions would not be considerable. However, Project construction activities would generate short-term nitrogen oxides (NO x ) emissions in quantities that would exceed the MBARD threshold. As described in the Impact 4.3-1 discussion, with implementation of recommended mitigation, Project emissions would be reduced to levels below the MBARD threshold. Because the MBARD thresholds are established to address cumulative emissions within the Air Basin, Project conformance with the established threshold necessarily means it would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact related to short-term construction emissions. The cumulative effect would be less than significant. With regard to impacts on sensitive receptors, the total diesel particulate matter (DPM) from onsite equipment that would be required to construct Project components would be limited to between several days and 36 months, depending on the specific facility (see Impact 4.3-4 discussion relative to sensitive receptor exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs)). Nearby cumulative projects with construction schedules that overlap with the Project would also be expected to expose sensitive receptors to DPM emissions. These emissions could be substantial, occur over a period of a couple years or less for a given project, and would mostly be distant from Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts the Project sites. With the exception of project Nos. 9 and 13 which would be in the vicinities of the SC WWTF and the Chanticleer Sites, respectively, none of the other cumulative project locations illustrated on Figure 5-1, Cumulative Projects, would be within 1,000 feet of a Project purification facility or recharge well site. The subject cumulative projects would include a rail trail and pedestrian overpass of Highway 1, respectively. Given the distances between sensitive receptors and the Project and cumulative project sites, along with the duration and intensity of these projects’ emissions generating activities, the combined effects of the Project’s and cumulative projects’ construction would not result in long-term or concentrated exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions. As a result, the cumulative effect would be less than significant. Project construction would result in diesel emissions-based odors, which would result in a negligible and short-term effect on nearby sensitive receptors (see Impact 4.3-5 discussion relative to sensitive receptor exposure to odors). Cumulative projects could also contribute to increases in diesel emissions-based odors. However, as noted previously, such increases would generally be distant, limited in duration, extent, and intensity. Project operations at the Headquarters-West Annex site, if selected, would involve a spoils yard where excavated dirt, soil, or mud would be allowed to dry before off-hauling for disposal or reuse. For the reasons set forth in Impact 4.3-5, these activities would not generate odors that would be objectionable to substantial numbers of people. No projects in the cumulative scenario would have operations that would create objectionable odors in the vicinity of the Headquarters-West Annex site, such that a cumulatively significant impact related to odors could result. As a result, the Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative effect related to odors. Cumulative Operational Impacts Noted previously, pursuant to MBARD CEQA Guidelines, a project’s operational emissions would result in a significant cumulative impact if they exceed adopted significance thresholds. As discussed in Impacts 4.3-2, Project operations would not cause emissions that would exceed the MBARD significance thresholds. Therefore, the Project would not be cumulatively considerable and would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact related to emissions of criteria pollutants. With regard to impacts on sensitive receptors, there would be no on-site DPM emissions from Project operation. As such, the project would not be cumulatively considerable and there would be no cumulative impact. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts 5.2.4 Biological Resources Impact CU-BIO: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to biological resources. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on biological resources encompasses the Project site as well as biologically linked areas sharing the watersheds (e.g., San Lorenzo River, Soquel Creek) in the vicinity. A significant cumulative effect on biological resources would result if the effects of the Project combined with those of cumulative projects to cause substantial adverse effects on biological resources, including special-status plants and wildlife, sensitive natural communities, wetlands and riparian areas, and wildlife movement corridors. Cumulative project No. 9 would have impacts that could combine geographically with those of the Project to affect biological resources. Other projects in the cumulative scenario would not overlap with the study area, but could still have indirect effects on the same types of biological resources of the region. Cumulative project No. 9 would involve the construction of a bicycle/pedestrian trail that would extend along the Santa Cruz Branch Rail Line, from Natural Bridges Drive to Pacific Avenue. Part of this project will have an alignment similar a Project’s conveyance pipeline proposed along Bay Street. There are no known sensitive resources in this area that could be affected by both projects. Beyond the immediate study area, the effects of the project could combine with those in the cumulative scenario to adversely affect other sensitive biological resources throughout the Santa Cruz area. For example, the Project and cumulative projects could both affect birds that use foraging and nesting habitats in the study area. Cumulative impact assessment at this scale is somewhat speculative given the limited availability of reliable information about the potential indirect effects of multiple potential future projects, and offsetting these impacts are large-scale habitat improvement projects such as the tidal marsh restoration efforts at Elkhorn Slough, the San Leandro Shoreline Marshlands and Hayward Regional Shoreline, and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration projects, which are intended to provide a net benefit to biological resources. Laws and regulations protecting biological resources have been applied with increasing rigor since the early 1970s. These include the state and federal Endangered Species Acts, among others described in Section 4.4.3, Regulatory Framework. The Project and other future projects in the region would be required to comply with local, state, and federal laws and policies, and all applicable permitting requirements of the agencies with jurisdiction over biological resources. Additionally, pursuant to CEQA, future projects would be required to apply feasible mitigation to reduce significant biological resources effects. These regulatory requirements would serve to reduce future contributions to cumulative impacts on biological resources in the study area. The application of these regulations is evident in the analysis and mitigation presented in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. As discussed in that section, several mitigation measures have been identified to avoid or reduce impacts on biological resources. These measures include pre-construction surveys, requirements for biological monitoring, and best management practices Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts for minimizing effects to sensitive species and habitat that could be affected by the project during construction. With implementation of these measures, and adherence to the environmental regulatory permitting requirements identified in Chapters 3, Project Description, the residual effects of the Project on biological resources would not be expected to combine with impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario to cause a substantial adverse effect on special-status plants and wildlife, sensitive natural communities, wetlands and riparian areas, or wildlife movement corridors. When considered in the broader context of biological resources in the study area and the greater Monterey Bay Area, the project would add a negligible, incremental contribution to habitat loss, degradation, and direct and indirect impacts to special-status species. The project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.5 Cultural Resources Impact CU-CUL: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to historical resources, archaeological resources, or human remains. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope of analysis for cumulative impacts on historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains encompasses the northern Monterey Bay Area including the cities of Santa Cruz, Soquel, and Capitola. This area was selected because of the similar themes of its Native American use, as well as prehistoric and historic-period use and associated cultural resources. The cumulative analysis combines historical resources, archaeological resources, and human remains into a single, non-renewable resource base and considers the additive effect of potential Project impacts on: architectural resources and archaeological resources that qualify as historical resources, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; and human remains. A cumulatively significant impact could result if incremental effects of the Project, after implementation of mitigation, combined with the impacts of one or more cumulative projects, after implementation of their mitigation, to cause a substantial adverse effect on the same architectural or archaeological resource, or human remains. There are no known historic architectural resources that qualify as historical resources in the Project area; therefore, the Project would not contribute to a significant cumulative effect on architectural historical resources. There are buildings listed on the City of Santa Cruz and City of Capitola’s historic resource surveys that qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. These buildings would not be directly impacted by the Project. Indirect impacts related to vibration during construction would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through alternative construction methods and/or monitoring to ensure construction vibration is below the 0.25 inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity vibration (PPV) threshold. All Cumulative Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts Projects in Table 5-1 that involve construction equipment that would meet or exceed the damage threshold for historic buildings could also adversely affect historical resources. In addition, there are numerous archaeological resources in the Project area that are considered historical resources. As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, Project construction would have the potential to affect known and unknown archaeological resources. Cumulative project No. 9 is the only project in the cumulative scenario whose effects could combine with those of Project components to adversely affect a known archaeological resource. While portions of the project area have been studied, buried or otherwise obscured, resources may still exist within the Project area. Accordingly, depending upon the extent of the resource, the potential for the Project and cumulative projects to affect the same undiscovered archaeological resource cannot be entirely discounted. Federal, state, and local laws can generally protect cultural resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to entirely avoid cultural sites or retain them in situ. All development in the geographic scope would be required to comply with the same provisions of CEQA and implement measures similar to those identified in Section 4.5 (i.e., Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a–4.5-2c and Mitigation Measure 4.5-3). These measures would require the construction contractor to find alternative construction methods in the vicinity of historic buildings, provide for advance planning around areas of known archaeological resources, preconstruction assessment to identify potential archaeological sites within a project area, and protocols for responding in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. Through compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of associated avoidance and minimization measures, the Project would not have a considerable contribution to adverse effects on cultural resources of the region. This cumulative impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.6 Energy Conservation Impact CU-ENE: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to energy conservation. (Less than Significant) As described in Section 4.6, Energy Conservation, the Project would have no impact related to conflicting with energy standards. Therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these topics. Cumulative impacts associated with energy conservation are considered in the context of both local and regional energy supply and demand. As described in Section 4.6, Project construction could use large amounts of fuel or energy, which in the context of local and regional energy supplies, in combination with the energy demands of the projects described in Table 5-1, above, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts could result in a significant cumulative impact if not used efficiently. Mitigation measures identified in Impact 4.6-1 would help improve the fuel efficiency of and limit idling times for construction equipment. Energy used during construction would primarily be in the form of gasoline and diesel fuel. Even if Project construction were to occur simultaneously with other cumulative projects, the cumulative use of energy resources during construction would be consistent with normal construction practices and would comply with efficiency- and conservation-related policies intended to address cumulative energy consumption statewide. Therefore, after mitigation, Project construction would have a less-than-significant contribution to the overall cumulative impact related to the inefficient use of fuel sources. As discussed in Section 4.6 (see Impact 4.6-1), the anticipated increase in electricity consumption for the Project would represent less than 0.01 percent of Santa Cruz County’s annual usage. It should be noted that Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) purchases wholesale electric energy and capacity from generators and suppliers and periodically conducts solicitations / requests for offers (RFO) for additional supplies of conventional and renewable electricity. Therefore, in the event that many other cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 that would be high demand electricity users, such as the Monterey Bay Regional Water project (DeepWater Desal), request electrical service from MBCP, additional wholesale electric energy may need to be purchased by MBCP. In addition, some reinforcement or upgrades of the existing distribution system may also be required, but this would not substantially constrain local or regional energy supplies. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to the cumulative impact associated with the unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient use of energy, or with energy supply, either at a local or regional level, during operation. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.7 Geology and Paleontology Impact CU-GEO: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to geology and paleontology. (Less than Significant) Although the Project area is within a seismically active region with a wide range of geologic and soil conditions, these conditions can vary greatly within a short distance. Accordingly, geologic, soils, and seismic impacts tend to be site-specific and depend on the local geology and soil conditions. For these reasons, the geographic scope for potential cumulative geologic and seismic impacts consists of the Project component locations and the immediate vicinity. The Project could contribute to cumulative geology, soils, and seismicity effects if it’s effects overlapped in time and space with those of one or more cumulative projects. Significant cumulative impacts related to geologic hazards could occur if the incremental impacts of the Project combined with the incremental impacts of a cumulative project would substantially increase the risk that people or the environment would be exposed to geologic, seismic, and soils hazards. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Paleontology, the Project would have no impact with respect to being on an active fault or in areas susceptible to landslides, subsidence or collapse; loss of topsoil; the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems; or being in areas with unique paleontological or unique geological resources. Accordingly, the Project could not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these topics and are not discussed further. There are numerous projects listed in Table 5-1 that would be near or adjacent to the Project that could be constructed at the same time, which could cause significant cumulative erosion effects. However, as discussed in Section 4.7.3, Regulatory Framework, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP) would require each project involving disturbance of one acre or more of land to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPPs would describe Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control runoff and prevent erosion for each such project. Through compliance with this requirement, the potential for erosion impacts would be reduced. The Construction General Permit has been developed to address cumulative conditions arising from construction throughout the state, and is intended to maintain cumulative effects of projects subject to this requirement below levels that would be considered significant. For example, two adjacent construction sites would be required to implement BMPs to reduce and control the release of sediment and/or other pollutants in any runoff leaving their respective sites. The runoff water from both sites would be required to achieve the same action levels, measured as a maximum amount of sediment or pollutant allowed per unit volume of runoff water. Thus, even if the runoff waters were to combine after leaving the sites, the sediments and/or pollutants in the combined runoff would still be at concentrations (amount of sediment or pollutants per volume of runoff water) below action levels and would not combine to be cumulatively significant. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact with respect to soil erosion. Seismically induced groundshaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading, and expansive or corrosive soils could cause structural damage or pipeline leaks or ruptures during construction and operations phases. However, State and local building regulations and standards, described in Section 4.7.3 have been established to address and reduce the potential for such impacts to occur. The Project and cumulative projects would be required to comply with the same applicable provisions of these laws and regulations. Through compliance with these requirements, the potential for impacts would be reduced. As explained further in Section 4.7.3, the purpose of the California Building Code and local ordinances is to regulate and control the design, construction, quality of materials, use/occupancy, location, and maintenance of all buildings and structures within its jurisdiction; by design, it is intended to reduce the cumulative risks from buildings and structures. Based on compliance with these requirements, the incremental impacts of the Project, combined with impacts of other projects in the area would not combine to cause a significant cumulative impact related to seismically induced groundshaking, liquefaction and lateral spreading, or expansive or corrosive soils. Therefore, the Project would have a less-thansignificant contribution to a cumulative effect. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts 5.2.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact CU-GHG: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to greenhouse gas emissions. (Less than Significant) Because greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have global climate change implications, the evaluation of GHG emissions impacts is inherently a cumulative impact analysis. Through Executive Orders S-3-05 and B-30-15, the State has established goals and policies for reducing its contribution of GHG emissions. Accordingly, these policy documents provide goals against which the significance of individual projects’ emissions can be measured. Consistent with the emissions reduction goal for 2030 identified in Executive Order B-30-15, the numeric significance criterion used to evaluate operational emissions plus construction emissions amortized over the Project’s estimated 50-year lifetime is 2,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year. If Project construction and operations would result in GHG emissions greater than 2,000 metric tons CO 2 e per year, the Project would not be considered consistent with the State’s GHG reduction goals and the associated impact would be cumulatively significant. The timeframe during which the Project could contribute to cumulative GHG emissions effects includes the 24-month to 36month construction phase, as well as the anticipated approximately 50-year operations phase. As discussed in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Impact 4.8-1), the amortized construction and operational emissions that would be associated with the Project would be approximately 405 metric tons CO 2 e per year (refer to Appendix E for all assumptions associated with the GHG emissions), which would result in a less-than-significant impact and a less-than-significant contribution to the overall significant cumulative impact associated with climate change. Therefore, the Project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative climate change impact related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact CU-HAZ: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope of analysis for cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts encompasses and is limited to the Project site and its immediately adjacent area. This is because impacts relative to hazards and hazardous materials are generally site-specific and depend on the nature and extent of the hazards and hazardous materials released, and existing and future soil and groundwater conditions. For example, hazardous materials incidents tend to be limited to a smaller more localized area surrounding the immediate spill location and extent of the release, and could only be cumulative if two or more hazardous materials releases spatially and temporally overlapped. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts A significant cumulative impact related to hazards and hazardous material would occur if the incremental impacts of the project combined in space and time with that of a cumulative project to substantially increase risk that people or the environment would be exposed to hazards and hazardous materials. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would have no impact with respect to being within 2 miles of a private airstrip or wildland fire hazards. Accordingly, the Project could not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these topics and are not discussed further. Cumulative Impacts during Project Construction There are numerous projects in the cumulative scenario near or adjacent to the Project that could be constructed at the same time. Each project would be subject to the same regulatory requirements discussed in Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework, including the implementation of health and safety plans and soil and groundwater management plans, as needed. That is, cumulative projects involving releases of or encountering hazardous materials would all be required to remediate their respective sites to established regulatory standards. This would be the case regardless of the number, frequency, or size of the release(s), or the residual amount of chemicals present in the soil from previous spills. Therefore, while it is possible that the project and cumulative projects could result in releases of hazardous materials at the same location and time, the responsible party associated with each spill would be required to remediate site conditions to the same established regulatory standards. The potential residual effects of the project that would remain after compliance with regulatory requirements would not combine with the potential residual effects of cumulative projects to cause a significant cumulative impact because residual impacts would be highly site-specific. Accordingly, no substantial cumulative impact with respect to the use of hazardous materials would result. For these reasons, the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials during construction. As with the Project, cumulative projects could also require temporary lane closures that could interfere with emergency plans or routes, which would be a significant cumulative impact. However, similar to the Project, cumulative projects that require temporary lane closures would also be required by the local agency with jurisdiction to implement traffic control plans to flow around construction zones. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact with respect to emergency plans or routes. Cumulative Impacts during Project Operations During operation, the Project and several projects in the cumulative scenario would require the transport, use, storage, and disposal of chemicals that may be hazardous. All project facilities involving the transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials would be required to prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and comply with applicable regulations, including those governing containment, site layout, and emergency response and notification procedures in the event of a spill or release. Transportation and disposal of wastes, such as spent cleaning solutions, would also be subject to regulations for the safe handling, transportation, and disposal of chemicals and wastes. Such regulations include standards to which parties responsible for hazardous materials releases must return spill sites, regardless of location, frequency, or size of release, or existing background contaminant concentrations to their original conditions. Compliance with existing regulations regarding hazardous materials transport would Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts reduce the risk of environmental or human exposure to such materials. Therefore, the combined effects of the project and other cumulative projects would not be cumulatively significant; the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact regarding hazards and hazardous materials during operation. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.10 Hydrology – Groundwater Impact CU-HYD-GW: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to groundwater resources. (Beneficial) The geographic scope for the cumulative analysis of groundwater resources includes the entire Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin (basin), as delineated on Figure 4.10-1, which includes the District’s service areas I – IV, the smaller Soquel Valley Groundwater Basin, portion of the Santa Cruz Water Department (SCWD) service area including the West Santa Cruz Terrace Basin, and the Central Water District (CWD). Areas of the SCWD west of the basin and the Pajaro Valley Groundwater Basin (PVGB) are also included. The geographic scope of this analysis also includes a vertical element, because other cumulative projects could affect the groundwater levels in the subsurface aquifers. The Project would recharge the Purisima A and B/C aquifer units. However, because of groundwater pumping redistribution, which is also an element of the Project, it could affect additional Purisima aquifer units and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer. The vertical element of the geographic scope, therefore, includes all Purisima aquifer units 1 and the Aromas Red Sands aquifer. The hydrogeologic relationship of the Purisima and Aromas Red Sands aquifer is shown graphically on Figure 4.10-3; Table 4.10-1 describes the individual units of the Purisima. The temporal scope of this cumulative analysis extends from 2017 to 2069, as this timeframe includes the pre-Project period from (2017-2022), the 20-year Project period (2022 – 2043), and the post-Project period (2043-2069) considered in the GSFlow groundwater model (see Section 4.10.4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures [subsection Approach to Analysis]). Baseline conditions (modeled as the “No-Project” or Projected Existing Conditions simulation) in the GSFlow groundwater reflect past and current groundwater projects, current pumping distribution in the District, and current District groundwater pumping infrastructure. Cumulatively significant impacts on groundwater resources include detrimental declines in groundwater levels, degradation of groundwater quality, and the exacerbation of seawater intrusion. Significant cumulative impacts could result if incremental effects of the Project, combined with one or more of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1, were to cause substantial adverse effects on hydrology, water quality, or flooding conditions. Conversely, as the Project involves the redistribution of groundwater pumping and aquifer recharge with the 1 Purisima aquifer units are referred to by the nomenclature: F, D/E/F, D, BC, B, A, AA, Tm, and Tu. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts objective to increase groundwater protective elevations, prevent seawater intrusion, and meet demand of the District, this analysis also considers whether the Project could have a beneficial cumulative effect. Impact Analysis This impact analysis considers the construction and operational cumulative impacts of the Project. However, because construction and development of production and monitoring wells proposed by the Project are temporary operations that do not require substantial quantities of groundwater or degrade aquifer groundwater quality, Project-related construction-phase effects are not considered to be cumulatively significant in nature or extent and thus would be less than significant. In determining the past, current, and reasonably foreseeable groundwater-related projects within the geographic scope, this analysis first considered those projects listed on Table 5-1 that are primarily development projects which would not substantially influence groundwater supply or groundwater quality. Cumulative project Nos. 1 through 8, 10 through 12, 14 and 15 are proposed or completed infill development projects that would obtain a potable water supply through an established municipal purveyor and would not involve the direct extraction of groundwater from a private well in the Purisima or Aromas Red Sands aquifer. Project Nos. 9 and 13 are pedestrian accessways and roadway improvements that do not significantly reduce groundwater recharge, affect groundwater levels, or the degrade the quality of groundwater. The analysis then considers project Nos. 16 through 19 and 21, which are groundwater resource management projects. Project 16, College Lake Integrated Resource Management Project, provides a supplemental water supply source in the PVGB that would reduce groundwater pumping to balance the basin and reduce seawater intrusion. Project 17, the Watsonville Airport Groundwater Recharge Project, would collect surface water runoff and recharge it into the PVGB to help address the basin’s overdraft condition. Project 18, Pajaro Valley Groundwater Recharge Project, is another groundwater recharge project in the PVGB which would collect and infiltrate 350 acre-feet of surface water in a groundwater recharge basin with the objective to reduce the PVGB current overdraft condition and reduce seawater intrusion. Cumulative projects No. 19 concern water transfer, conservation, and other measures designed to improve water reliability and reduce groundwater pumping, thereby assisting recovery to protective groundwater elevations in the Purisima aquifers. Cumulative project No. 21 is a seawater desalination project that would supplement potable water supplies on the Monterey Peninsula and reduce the groundwater pumping. Reduction in groundwater pumping would increase groundwater levels and help reduce seawater intrusion. Generally, the cumulative groundwater resource management projects listed in Table 5-1 and discussed above are intended to improve groundwater conditions by recharging aquifer levels and/or by reducing the groundwater pumping. None of the cumulative projects propose to extract additional groundwater that would lead to overdraft or operate in a manner that results in depressed groundwater levels or the exacerbation of seawater intrusion. Additionally, the cumulative projects, especially those that would recharge the groundwater aquifers through surface water infiltration, must comply with applicable state groundwater regulations and would Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts not contribute to the degradation of groundwater quality. The Project’s objectives include to helping replenish the groundwater basin and prevent seawater intrusion, while allowing the District to meet its water demand. Although the Project and the cumulative projects may be in different geographical areas, could affect different basins and aquifers, and occur either simultaneously or at different times; their collective implementation could improve groundwater resources to some degree in the Santa Cruz and Pajaro Valley Basins and, thus, cumulatively, the effect would be beneficial to water resources. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.11 Hydrology Resources – Surface Water Impact CU-HYD: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to hydrology resources and surface water quality. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for potential cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts consists of the Project area and surrounding watershed lands as well as marine waters in Monterey Bay. Cumulatively significant impacts on hydrologic resources and water quality could result if incremental effects of the Project combined with those of one or more of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 to cause substantial adverse effects on hydrology, water quality, or flooding conditions. Impacts on Surface Hydrology and Water Quality during Construction Construction activities associated with the Project could result in the degradation of water quality from increased soil erosion and associated sedimentation of water bodies due to stormwater runoff, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials. In addition, discharges of dewatering effluent from excavated areas and disinfectant from pipelines could adversely affect water quality (see Section 4.11, Hydrology Resources – Surface Water [Impact 4.11-1]). Most of the cumulative projects identified in Table 5-1 that are presently under construction or planned for construction involve excavation and use of heavy equipment during construction. Therefore, the cumulative projects have the potential to degrade surface water quality as a result of construction-related soil erosion or accidental discharges of hazardous construction chemicals. A number of the cumulative projects could also require construction dewatering or pipeline disinfection. The relevant cumulative projects would have control measures (described below) such that no substantial cumulative impact would occur related to the degradation of water quality as a result of construction activities. As described in Impact 4.11-1, projects that would disturb more than one acre of soil would be subject to the NPDES Construction General CGP requirements. The CGP requirements include measures based, in part, on the consideration of cumulative effects on receiving waters. Such requirements include the preparation and implementation of project-specific SWPPPs. The SWPPPs would include specific erosion and stormwater control measures to prevent substantial adverse effects on water quality during construction and would be implemented throughout the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts duration of construction activities. Several of the projects in the cumulative scenario would be required to implement a SWPPP. Additionally, the Project and cumulative development projects must adhere to NPDES Municipal Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit requirements and implement specific design features and BMPs for post-construction stormwater management. Each project would be required to comply with existing water quality standards at the time of development and include BMPs, as necessary. The dewatering effluent from open excavations, the draining of existing pipelines, and the dechlorinated effluent from pipeline disinfection could be discharged to the storm drainage system or to vegetated upland areas. The General WDRs for Discharges with a Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001) and Statewide General Permit (NPDES Permit No. CAG140001) for Drinking Water System Discharges would ensure implementation of BMPs for minimizing and avoiding the release of pollutants and hazardous materials. With adherence to the described mandatory, non-discretionary regulatory requirements, the effects of the Project would not combine with those of cumulative projects to cause a cumulatively significant water quality impact from increased soil erosion and sedimentation, or inadvertent releases of toxic chemicals during general construction activities. Therefore, no overall cumulatively significant effect would occur and the Project would have a less-thansignificant contribution to a cumulative effect. Impacts on Surface Hydrology and Water Quality during Operation and Maintenance As discussed under Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project would be required to demonstrate compliance with the City’s MS4 permit for all onshore Project components. The MS4 stormwater program is designed to address stormwater pollution from new developments and redevelopment projects. In accordance with the MS4 permit, the Project would be required to implement postconstruction stormwater BMPs, such as the use of pervious surfaces (i.e., porous concrete or pavement), bio-swales, vegetated buffers and/or retention ponds to reduce site runoff. Operation of several cumulative projects in Table 5-1 have the potential to adversely affect stormwater hydrology and quality, and would be required to implement the same MS4 stormwater program actions as the Project. Compliance with such mandatory, non-discretionary post-construction stormwater requirements would reduce potential for surface drainage to increase the amount or rate of runoff from project sites as compared to existing conditions, and would minimize potential for stormwater to transport pollutants such that the beneficial uses of receiving water bodies would be impaired or degraded. Further, all Project conveyance pipelines would be buried underground, except where pipes are proposed to span existing bridges, and upon completion of installation, surface conditions would be restored to pre-construction conditions. The residual effects of the Project that would remain after compliance with regulatory requirements would not combine with the potential residual effects of cumulative projects to cause a substantial adverse effect on surface hydrology or water quality. The Project, therefore, would have a less-thansignificant contribution to a cumulative impact related to Project operations. The cumulative projects whose discharge impacts could combine with those of the Project to adversely affect Monterey Bay water quality are those in in Table 5-1 which could affect SC WWTF treatment demands and effluent discharges or otherwise involve direct discharges to the ocean (e.g., all except Nos. 9, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21). As discussed under Impact 4.11-2, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts assessment of the Project brine discharge from the outfall indicates that operational discharges would conform to NPDES effluent limitations, which incorporate Ocean Plan Water Quality Objectives (WQOs). Direct outfall discharges from cumulative projects (i.e., No. 21) would be at sufficient distances such that the likelihood of discharge plumes from different outfalls intersecting or merging and resulting in exceedances of established water quality objectives or adversely affecting beneficial uses of receiving waters (Monterey Bay) would be low. Further, the effects of Project operations on SC WWTF effluent would be regulated by the water quality requirements of the SC WWTF’s operational NPDES Permit. Similarly, the effects of projects within the cumulative scenario on SC WWTF’s effluent would also be subject to the water quality requirements of the same NPDES permit system, administered by the CCRWQCB. Mandatory water quality testing and analysis, required as part of the NPDES permit process, would ensure operational discharges comply with Basin Plan and Ocean Plan water quality objectives. With mandatory compliance with the regulatory requirements and the NPDES effluent limitations, effluent from the Project and those in the cumulative scenario would not combine to cause substantial adverse water quality effects. The Project therefore would have a less-thansignificant contribution to a cumulative impact related to operational discharges. Alteration of Drainage Patterns As discussed in Impacts 4.11-2 and 4.11-3, the Project would require site disturbance in a manner that could alter drainage patterns and increase impervious surface area. Most of the projects identified in Table 5-1 would also involve new impervious surfaces, which may alter site drainage. Alterations to site drainage could cause increased peak stormwater flows, exacerbate erosion and sedimentation, and result in the exceedance of stormwater collection and conveyance systems. Increased areas of impervious surfaces could also increase flooding of downstream waterways and cause runoff volumes to exceed stormwater conveyance system capacities. Implementation of the Project would not represent a substantial land use change within the geographic scope when combined with the projects identified in Table 5-1 as compared to current conditions at the Project sites and in the surrounding area. The majority of the projects identified are within the developed portion of the cumulative geographic area. The urbanized portions of the local watershed lands no longer reflect natural conditions in terms of stormwater quality, volume, and drainage. The majority of the surfaces associated with the identified projects in the cumulative scenario, including most locations affected by the Project, are currently covered with impervious surfaces and, as a result, stormwater runoff is generally rapid and surface infiltration rates are low. Stormwater flows in the lower portions of the affected watershed lands adjacent to the Project are generated as runoff from paved surfaces and drain down gradient into stormwater conveyance systems and can contain pollutants typical of urbanized watersheds. While the Project and many of the cumulative projects would result in some increase in impervious area, storm runoff volumes and rates, as well as water quality generated during the operations phase would be similar to the existing runoff typical of urbanized watersheds. Also, future development would be required to mitigate for increased flows within the drainage area on a project-by-project basis under the MS4 Permit through incorporation of low impact development (LID) design features and stormwater management BMPs. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts Stormwater requirements under the MS4 permit are part of a regional program designed to address the potential cumulative effects of past, present, and foreseeable projects within the region. Adherence to these requirements would ensure hydrology and water quality effects related to the alteration of drainage patterns would not cause a significant cumulative impact. The Project, therefore, would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact related to alteration of drainage patterns. Risk of Loss, Injury, or Death due to Flooding As discussed in Section 4.11 (Impact 4.11-4), the Project would not involve the siting of facilities in locations within or near areas subject to inundation due to 100-year flooding, tsunami, dam or levee failure related inundation zones or coastal flooding, including as a result of sea level rise with the exception of facilities proposed within the existing SC WWTF Site and small portions of the conveyance pipelines. The proposed pipeline components would be below ground surface or span bridges, and surface areas returned to their approximate pre-construction topography. The SC WWTF Site is an existing facility and the Project would not result in improvements that would impede or redirect flood flows or result in an increased flood hazard exposure risk for on-site staff, as compared to existing conditions. Some of the cumulative projects identified in Table 5-1 could be subject to adverse effects related to flooding, which include the effects of tsunamis, and/or sea level rise, but for the above reasons are not geographically relevant to the cumulative analysis. Thus, the Project would not combine with projects in the cumulative scenario to cause a significant cumulative impact related to flooding or flood hazards. The Project, therefore, would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact related to flooding. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.12 Land Use and Recreation Impact CU-LU: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to land use and recreation. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for cumulative impact analysis related to land use and recreation consists of the lands and recreational resources that would be affected by the project. A significant cumulative impact on land use and recreation would result if the effects of the Project combined in space and time with those of cumulative projects in a manner that would conflict with applicable land use plans or policies. As analyzed in Section 4.12, Land Use and Recreation, the Project would not divide an established community, increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities, or include or require the construction of recreational facilities. Therefore, the Project could not cause or contribute to any cumulative impact related to these issues. The potential for the Project to individually or cumulatively conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts natural community conservation plan is addressed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, and is not addressed in this section. As also described in Section 4.12, the Project components would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations of the jurisdictions in which they are proposed. While it is possible that other cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 could conflict with such requirements, the Project would not be expected to cause or contribute to any such conflicts. The combined effects of the Project and other cumulative projects would, therefore, not be cumulatively significant and the Project would have a less-than-significant contribution to a cumulative impact related to land use and recreation. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.13 Noise and Vibration Impact CU-NOI: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to noise and vibration. (Significant and Unavoidable) The geographic context for cumulative changes in the noise and vibration environment include residential and commercial areas of unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County, as well as the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola. In order to contribute to a cumulative noise and vibration impact, Project effects would have to be in close proximity to those of other projects in the cumulative scenario and occur at the same time. Cumulative projects Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15 could meet these criteria. As discussed in Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration, construction activities would expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that could exceed noise standards found in the County of Santa Cruz noise ordinance and result in a substantial temporary noise increase after application of available mitigation at the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, Willowbrook Lane Site and along pipeline routes (see Impact 4.13-1). Construction activities would also result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels, above those existing without the Project. Specifically, sensitive receptors in the vicinities of the Chanticleer Site, Headquarters-West Annex Site, Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site and along Pipeline routes could be exposed to substantial temporary or periodic noise (i.e., above 75dBA), after application of available mitigation (see Impact 4.13-2). If Project construction were to coincide with construction of another cumulative project shown on Figure 5-1, the combined effect could result in the exposure of affected sensitive receptors to even greater noise levels and/or exposure of additional (new) sensitive receptors to noise impacts. Although construction noise is temporary in nature, it is reasonably foreseeable that construction of the Project and one or more nearby cumulative projects could occur simultaneously. Noise resulting from simultaneous construction of these projects could result in a significant cumulative impact on sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the above-referenced sites. Given its size and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-26 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts scale, Project construction activities could have a cumulatively significant contribution to the impact. Application of recommended mitigation identified in Section 4.13 would reduce construction noise exposure at nearby sensitive receptors. However, due to the close proximally between Project construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors, it is unlikely that any additional construction noise reduction measures would be capable of further mitigating cumulative construction noise levels to levels that would meet the identified thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to a cumulative impact related to construction noise would be significant and unavoidable. In order for a cumulative vibration impact to occur, equipment used to construct the Project would have to operate within at least 100 feet of a neighboring cumulative project’s construction equipment, at the same time. As discussed in Section 4.13, construction activities related to the AWPF and recharge well sites would expose nearby sensitive receptors (e.g., people and structures) to vibration levels below the applied human annoyance and building damage thresholds. Construction of the proposed pipelines could require the use of a vibratory roller that could operate near historic buildings. Application of recommended mitigation (Mitigation Measure 4.13-4) would reduce the potential for Project vibration that could result in building damage. The measure calls for monitoring of ambient vibration levels, and work stoppage if levels exceed the building damage threshold. With application of this measure, Project work would not be able to proceed if its individual or cumulative contribution to vibration impacts caused an exceedance of the threshold. Therefore, the Project would not to contribute substantially to a significant cumulative impact related to construction vibration. The cumulative effect would be less than significant. Project operations would not be expected to generate substantial permanent increases in ambient noise levels, above those without the Project, or otherwise expose nearby sensitive receptors to noise levels that could exceed noise standards. None of the projects identified in the cumulative scenario would be located in proximity to a Project site that would have operational noise and themselves be expected to generate substantial sources of operational noise. Therefore, a cumulatively significant operational noise impact would not be expected, and the Project’s contribution to cumulative operational noise impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: None feasible. _________________________ 5.2.14 Population and Housing Impact CU-POP: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to population and housing. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for the analysis of direct cumulative population and housing impacts during Project construction and operation is the Project area and the broader Monterey Bay region (i.e., counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey). Cumulatively significant impacts on population and housing could result if the incremental effects of the Project, when combined with Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-27 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts those of one or more cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would cause substantial population growth in the study area directly as a result of temporary or permanent workers moving to the area, or indirectly by providing infrastructure resources that could support a larger population in the study area. Potential indirect effects related to growth are addressed in Chapter 6, Other CEQA Considerations. As discussed in Section 4.14, Population and Housing, the Project would have no impact related to the displacement of substantial numbers of housing units or people. Therefore, the Project would not cause or contribute to a cumulative impact associated with the displacement of housing units or people that would necessitate the construction of replacement housing. Cumulative Impacts During Project Construction The Project, along with several projects in the cumulative scenario, would involve construction and, therefore, increase demand for construction workers. Construction jobs are temporary, and construction workers in a region typically commute from their residences to temporary construction jobs elsewhere in the region, rather than relocating to the vicinity of the job site. As discussed in Section 4.14, the construction industry in the region lost approximately 9 percent of jobs between 2005 and 2010, and construction employment has not returned to pre-recession levels. These employment numbers reflect the availability of construction workers that are not reflected in current construction job numbers. Since the recession, some of these workers may be working in less desirable jobs and would return to construction work if jobs were available. Because of the limited duration of construction jobs and the size of the regional construction workforce, the construction workforce in Monterey, San Benito, and Santa Cruz counties is expected to be capable of accommodating cumulative project demand for construction labor. It thus appears that there would be no significant cumulative impact on population and housing from construction of cumulative projects. Even if cumulative construction projects were to attract some workers to move to the area from outside the region, the number would be small relative to overall population in the region, and therefore would not be expected to result in substantial adverse population or housing effects. In any event, the contribution of the Project would not be cumulatively considerable because of the relatively small number of construction workers required. Therefore, the cumulative impact of Project construction would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts During Project Operations Operation of the Project and those in the cumulative scenario would increase demand for permanent employees for Project operations. Due to the nature of these jobs, it is assumed that most employees would be sourced from the local or regional labor pool. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast projects that the Monterey Bay Area Region will add 57,000 jobs between 2015 and 2040, for a total of 395,000 jobs by 2040. Of that growth, 37 percent (21,000 jobs) is expected for Santa Cruz County (AMBAG, 2018). The general plans of the local jurisdictions, along with the AMBAG regional housing allocations, are designed to accommodate anticipated job growth and housing for new workers. Because the population and housing that could be induced by operation of cumulative projects is expected to be consistent with growth anticipated in the counties’ general Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts plan documents, the cumulative impact during Project operations would be less than significant. As discussed in Impact 4.14-1, the Project’s operational workforce demands would be nominal: approximately 6 people. Even in the unlikely event that the population and housing induced by operation of cumulative projects were significant, in no event would the Project make a cumulatively considerable contribution to any such effect (less than significant). For the above reasons, the effects of the Project would not be expected to combine with those of projects in the cumulative scenario to create a substantial adverse effect related to population or housing in the Project area or the broader region. The Project’s contribution to these effects would, therefore, be less than significant. _________________________ 5.2.15 Transportation Impact CU-TRA: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation and traffic. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The geographic scope for cumulative traffic impacts analysis encompasses the local and regional roadways and highways that would be used for Project-related construction and operational activities and for access by construction worker and full-time employee vehicles. A significant cumulative effect related to transportation and traffic could occur if the incremental impacts of the Project combined with those of one or more of the projects listed in Table 5-1 that would use the same transportation network as the Project during the life of the project to substantially and adversely affect the effectiveness of the circulation system or to result in inadequate emergency access. As analyzed in Section 4.15, Transportation, the Project would result in no impact with respect to conflicts with an applicable congestion management plan, changes in air traffic patterns, permanent increases in traffic safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, or conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Therefore, it could not cause or contribute to any cumulative effect related to these traffic and transportation topics (No Impact). Cumulative Impacts during Project Construction As also discussed in Section 4.15, the Project’s significant impact related to increased congestion from construction traffic would be reduced to less-than-significant levels with the implementation of mitigation. Due to increased traffic and transportation network disruptions, concurrent construction of the Project and the projects listed in Table 5-1 could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts on traffic and transportation access and facilities. Such impacts would include a short-term increase in vehicle traffic; and reductions in the number or the available width of travel lanes on roads where construction would occur. In addition, concurrent construction of these projects could create traffic safety hazards for vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians on public roadways. Access to adjacent land uses and streets for both general traffic Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts and emergency vehicles could be disrupted. The Project’s contributions to these impacts would occur along routes adjacent to most pipeline alignments. Several projects listed in Table 5-1 and shown on Figure 5-1 are presently or expected to soon be under construction and could overlap (in time and space) with the Project’s anticipated 20192022 construction schedule, thereby causing the types of regional and local transportation impacts described above. These projects are Nos. 1-5, 7-10 in the City of Santa Cruz (, and No. 13 in unincorporated Santa Cruz County. The other projects identified in Table 5-1 are in various stages of planning or entitlement processes and could occur during the Project’s anticipated construction timeframe. Potentially significant cumulative traffic and transportation access and facility impacts of the type described above could occur along regional transportation corridors, including Highway 1, in the vicinity of Project components. Such impacts also would be expected along local arterial and neighborhood roadways connecting regional thoroughfares with specific project construction sites. Based upon the anticipated Project and cumulative project construction schedules (Table 5-1), potentially significant cumulative impacts on local roadways would likely be concentrated in the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola, and in unincorporated areas of Santa Cruz County. As discussed in Section 4.15, implementation of a mitigation measure calling for a traffic control plan for pipeline construction would lessen the Project’s construction-related traffic and transportation impacts. Specifically, these measures would reduce Project’s safety hazards, emergency access, and transportation facilities impacts. Mitigation Measure CU-TRA-1, presented below, is designed to further reduce the Project’s incremental contribution such that it would not be cumulatively considerable. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CU-TRA-1, the Project’s contribution to cumulative construction-related transportation impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative Impacts during Project Operations As described in Section 4.15, the Project would have less-than-significant long-term traffic increases on regional and local roadways during Project operations and maintenance. A significant cumulative impact associated with long-term traffic increases would occur if the traffic or transportation-related effects of Project operations combined with those of one or more of the projects identified in Table 5-1 to cause traffic on local and regional roadways to exceed established level of service standards. The number of new vehicle trips that would occur in association with operation of the projects in Table 5-1 remains unknown. Given the large number and nature of these projects, the total operations-related traffic resulting therefrom could be substantial. The combined effects of operations-related traffic from the projects identified in Table 5-1 could have a potentially significant cumulative impact on local and regional traffic. However, the addition of traffic associated with Project operation and maintenance would be negligible and, therefore, not contribute substantially to those impacts. As a result, the Project would have a lessthan-significant incremental contribution to cumulative operations-related traffic. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure CU-TRA-1: Construction Traffic Coordination Plan. The District shall coordinate with the appropriate planning agency within each affected jurisdiction to develop and implement a Construction Traffic Coordination Plan. The purpose of the plan shall be to lessen the cumulative effects of the Project and local development Project construction-related traffic delays and congestion. The plan shall address construction-related traffic associated with all Project sites in the vicinity of project components (i.e., within one mile or would use the same roads) and whose construction schedules overlap that of the Project. However, the construction traffic coordination plan shall, at a minimum, include the following components: • Identification of all projects in the vicinity of Project components (within one mile or would use the same roads) and whose construction schedules overlap that of the Project. • Consideration for the types of construction-related vehicles and corresponding numbers and timing of trips associated with each said project. • An evaluation of roadways affected by construction activities and measures to minimize roadway and traffic disturbances (e.g., lane closures and detours). • Phasing of construction activities, as necessary to prevent degradation of levels of service on affected roadways. • A program that provides for continual coordination with the affected agencies to allow for adjustments and refinements to the plan once construction is underway. The construction traffic plan may be modeled after or included within the plan described in Mitigation Measure 4.15-1 Traffic Control Plan (Pipeline Construction). If necessary, separate construction traffic coordination plans (i.e., one for each affected jurisdiction) may be prepared, provided each is compatible. _________________________ 5.2.16 Tribal Cultural Resources Impact CU-TRI: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to tribal cultural resources. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for cumulative effects on tribal cultural resources consists of the northern Monterey Bay Area including the cities of Santa Cruz, Soquel, and Capitola. This area was selected because of the similar themes of its Native American use and associated prehistoric resources. The cumulative analysis considers the additive effect of potential Project impacts on tribal cultural resources, as defined in PRC Section 21074(a). A cumulatively significant impact would occur if impacts of the Project, after implementation of mitigation, combined with the impacts of one or more cumulative projects, after implementation of their mitigation, to cause a substantial adverse effect on the same tribal cultural resource. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts There are numerous archaeological resources in the Project area that may be considered tribal cultural resources. As discussed in Section 4.16, Tribal Cultural Resources, while there are no known sacred, ceremonial, or gathering places in the Project area, Project construction has potential to affect known and unknown archaeological resources that may be tribal cultural resources. Cumulative project No. 9 is the only project in the cumulative scenario whose effects could combine with those of Project components to adversely affect a known archaeological resource. While portions of the Project area have been studied, buried or otherwise obscured resources may still exist within the Project area. Accordingly, depending upon the extent of the resource, the potential for the Project and cumulative projects to affect the same undiscovered tribal cultural resource cannot be entirely discounted. Federal, state, and local laws may be able to protect tribal cultural resources in most instances. Even so, it is not always feasible to entirely avoid cultural sites or retain them in situ. All development in the geographic scope would be required to comply with the same provisions of CEQA and the California Public Resources Code, and implement measures similar to those identified in Section 4.5 (i.e., Mitigation Measure 4.5-2a–4.5-2c and Mitigation Measure 4.5-3). These measures would provide for advance planning around areas of known archaeological resources, pre-construction assessment to identify potential archaeological sites within a project area, and protocols for responding in the event of inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or human remains. This cumulative impact on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant. Mitigation: None required. _________________________ 5.2.17 Utilities and Service Systems Impact CU-UTL: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, would not result in a cumulatively significant impact related to utilities including water, wastewater, and solid waste. (Less than Significant) The geographic scope for cumulative utilities systems impacts consists of the service areas of utility providers for wastewater treatment, water treatment, stormwater drainage, water supply, and solid waste landfill needs, as defined in Section 4.17, Utilities and Service Systems. Cumulatively significant impacts on utility systems could result if the incremental effects of the Project during the construction and/or operations phases combine with effects from one or more of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 to cause a substantial adverse effect related to water treatment requirements or capacity, available water supply, or landfill capacity. Wastewater Treatment and Capacity As discussed in Impact 4.17-1, Project construction and operation would generate wastewater streams that would be disposed via storm drain, sanitary sewer, and/or the SC WWTF existing ocean outfall. Several of the cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 that are in the immediate Project vicinity (e.g., Nos. 1-14) would have similar types of wastewater generation and disposal Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts requirements. As explained in Impact 4.17-1, the Project would be required to comply with existing applicable regulations governing water discharges from construction and operation, including General WDRs NPDES General Permit for Discharges with Low Threat to Water Quality (Order No. R3-2017-0042, NPDES Permit No. CAG993001), the NPDES Permit for Drinking Water System Discharges to Waters of the United States (Order No. R3-2014-0194-DWQ, NPDES No. CAG140001), Storm Water Discharges from Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Order No. 2013-0001-DWQ Permit No. CAS000004), and a Project-specific amendment to the existing SC WWTF NPDES permit (Order No. R3-2017-0030, NPDES No. CA 0048194). These regulatory requirements would also apply to all cumulative projects involving the same types of wastewater discharges. As also noted in Impact 4.17-1, the SC WWTF has substantial remaining treatment capacity. Accordingly, through adherence to these mandatory requirements, the combined wastewater streams generated by the Project and other projects in the cumulative scenario would not be expected to cause a substantial adverse effect related to water treatment requirements or capacity. Therefore, the Project’s cumulative contribution to water treatment and capacity impacts would be less than significant. Available Water Supply As discussed in Impact 4.17-2, Project construction water would be provided by the District and can be adequately supplied with its existing available water supply. As the water would be produced by the District, Project construction water needs would not affect the ability of other projects in the cumulative scenario to obtain water such that new or expanded entitlements would be required. Project operations would utilize secondary effluent from the SC WWTF, which would be purified and used to supplement the District’s existing water supply. While other Projects in the cumulative scenario could involve new or expanded water demands, the Project would have a beneficial effect with respect to water supply through groundwater replenishment. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant cumulative effect with respect to available water supply. Landfill Capacity and Compliance with Solid Waste Statutes As discussed in Impact 4.17-3, construction of the Project would generate an estimated 142,000 cubic yards of excess spoils and construction debris and a negligible amount of operational wastes. Conservatively assuming all Project construction waste would be disposed at the Buena Vista Landfill, the Project would have a negligible effect on remaining landfill capacity (i.e., 0.6 percent). Cumulative projects listed in Table 5-1 would also be expected to generate construction waste that would also require disposal, possibly at the same landfill. As discussed in Impact 4.17-3, the Project and cumulative projects, as well as the receiving landfills, would be required to comply with applicable State regulations governing waste management, including AB 341 and AB 939, and similar local regulations presented in Section 4.17.3, Regulatory Framework. These regulations were enacted to divert and otherwise reduce the volume of solid waste disposed at landfills, and are intended to address the cumulative impacts of waste management and landfill capacity. Through adherence to these regulatory requirements, the amount of solid waste generated by the Project and cumulative projects would be substantially reduced and, therefore, would not be expected to have a cumulatively significant effect with respect to landfill capacity or compliance with solid waste statutes. The Project’s cumulative contribution to this impact would be less than significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 5. Cumulative Impacts Mitigation: None required. 5.3 References California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 1996. Traffic Manual Chapter 9. ———, 2013. Visual Impact Assessment Santa Cruz HOV Lane Project. Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2018. Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast: Technical Documentation. Scheduled for Adoption June 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 5-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 6 Other CEQA Considerations This chapter provides an overview of the environmental effects of the Project, including growthinducing impacts, significant unavoidable adverse impacts, and significant irreversible environmental changes. Cross-references are made to other sections of the EIR where more detailed discussions of the impacts of the Project can be found. 6.1 Growth Inducing Impacts As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), an EIR must include a discussion of the potential growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including the elimination of obstacles to growth or through the stimulation of economic activity within the region. The CEQA Guidelines provide the following guidance for such discussion: “Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (a major expansion of a wastewater treatment plant might, for example, allow for more construction in service areas). Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristic of some projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.” A project can have direct and/or indirect growth inducement potential. An example of direct growth inducement is construction of new housing. An example of indirect growth inducement is a project that establishes substantial new permanent employment opportunities that in turn stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, a project could indirectly induce growth if it removes an obstacle to growth, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. The Project does not include the construction of new housing or substantial new permanent employment opportunities, and thus would not have direct growth inducement potential (refer to Section 4.14, Population and Housing, for additional discussion). The Project does have the potential to result in indirect growth inducement effects based on the removal of an obstacle to Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations growth – water supply. Therefore, based on the CEQA definition above, assessing the growthinducement potential of the Project involves answering the question: “Would implementation of the Project indirectly support economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing?” Water supply availability is one of the chief public services needed to support growth and community development. A water supply limitation could constrain future development, particularly if coupled with strong community policy. Implementation of the Project would increase the sustainability of the local groundwater supplies – upon which the Soquel Creek Water District (District) is 100 percent reliant – to meet current and future demands. While adequate water supply plays a role in supporting additional growth, it is not the single determinant of such growth. Other factors, including general plan policies, land use plans, and zoning; local and regional housing initiatives, including those concerning affordable housing; and the availability of wastewater treatment capacity and solid waste disposal capacity, public schools, transportation services, and other important public infrastructure, also influence business and residential population growth. Economic factors, in particular, greatly affect development rates and locations. This section analyzes the nature and extent of growth inducement potential for the Project. The analysis includes an assessment of existing and projected population levels within the District’s service area; existing and projected District water supply and demand; and the anticipated impacts of planned growth, including those identified in the EIRs prepared for the general plans of jurisdictions served by the District. The study area consists of the District’s water supply service area, which includes portions of the City of Capitola, as well as the unincorporated communities of Aptos, La Selva Beach, Opal Cliffs (Pleasure Point), Rio del Mar, Seascape, and Soquel. As noted in Chapter 3, Project Description, the District would construct an Advanced Water Purification Facility (AWPF) capable of producing 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd), approximately 1,500 afy, of purified water – the estimated volume required to offset the portion of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin’s groundwater overdraft attributable to District groundwater pumping. Accordingly, this section primarily concerns the growth implications of and AWPF capable of producing 1.3 mgd. However, the Project’s conveyance infrastructure would be sized to accommodate the potential for future expansion of the Project’s treatment system (if desired at a later time) and to convey up to approximately 2.7 mgd, or approximately 3,000 afy, of purified water (the estimated amount required to address basin-wide overdraft). If constructed, the Project expansion would provide additional water that could accommodate or remove a barrier to growth, as provided for in the general plans of communities receiving the water from the Project expansion. Accordingly, the Project could result in additional growth-related impacts, which have or would be addressed in subsequent CEQA documentation for the Project expansion, and the CEQA documentation for general plans of communities whose growth would be influenced by the Project expansion’s water. Expansion of the Project to address basin-wide overdraft is not reasonably foreseeable. Moreover, the communities that would receive water from the Project, if expanded, is not known at this time. For these reasons, a detailed assessment of potential growth effects of a Project expansion is premature, and thus not addressed further in this section. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations Public and agency comments related to growth issues were received during the public scoping period in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), and are summarized below. • Information relating to the impacts of growth and future need for an enhanced water supply on the Project was requested • Evaluate issues relating to growth and evaluate consistency with the 1987 Santa Cruz County Well Ordinance To the extent that issues identified in public comments involve potentially significant effects on the environment according to CEQA, and/or were raised by responsible and trustee agencies, they are identified and addressed in this EIR. For a complete list of public comments received during the public scoping period, refer to Appendix A. 6.1.1 Population, Water Supply, and Land Use There is a connection between population, water supply, and land use. In California, cities and counties have primary authority over land use while water suppliers, through laws and agreements, are expected – and usually required – to provide water service if water supply is available. The District is a County Water District organized pursuant to California Water Code Section 30,000 et. seq. Pursuant to California Water Code Sections 31020 et. seq. a district may do any act necessary to furnish sufficient water in the district for any present or future beneficial use. When deciding whether to approve or deny development projects, including whether water would be available to serve the projects, the jurisdictions within the District’s service area (i.e. City of Capitola and County of Santa Cruz) take into account the District’s water allocations, distribution, and permits. These considerations, along with numerous laws and regulations, help the various public agencies with responsibility for growth management work together to ensure that water supply planning and land use planning proceed in an orderly fashion. Population growth, waters supply, and general planning are key inputs into this process. A summary of each is provided below for the study area. Population Growth Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Population Growth Projections The study area lies within the jurisdiction of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), which is comprised of Monterey, San Benito and Santa Cruz counties. In 2014, AMBAG adopted the 2014 Regional Growth Forecast, which projects the region’s population, housing, and employment out to the year 2035. The 2018 update is currently in draft, with adoption anticipated in June 2018. The 2014 AMBAG projections for Santa Cruz County population through 2035 are presented in Table 6-1. As the table indicates, the County’s population is projected to grow by 17.61 percent between 2010 and 2035. The table also shows that the City of Santa Cruz is expected to experience considerably greater growth than unincorporated areas. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations TABLE 6-1 AMBAG POPULATION PROJECTIONS City of Santa Cruz City of Capitola 2010 2020 2025 2030 2035 % Change 2010-2035 59,946 66,860 70,058 73,375 76,692 27.94% 9,918 9,119 9,427 9,758 10,088 1.71% Unincorporated Santa Cruz County 129,739 132,318 134,879 139,601 144,227 11.17% Santa Cruz County 262,382 279,381 287,512 298,095 308,582 17.61% SOURCE: AMBAG, 2014. District Service Area Population Projections The District’s 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) provides projected population and demographic information for the District’s water service area out 20 years, to the year 2035 (see Table 6-2). These figures were generated by AMBAG, based on analysis of 2010 United States Census (US Census) data, California Department of Finance (DOF) data, and AMBAG’s forecast data developed with the Santa Cruz Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), cities, counties, and other agencies (District, 2016). According to the forecast, the total number of people receiving water service is expected to grow by about 6,320 people to about 43,315 by 2035. This projected population increase of 14 percent between 2010 and 2035, or about 0.56 percent per year, is below the County’s Measure J growth limit of 1 percent per year. During this period, housing and employment are projected to increase by approximately 16 and 13 percent, respectively (District, 2016). TABLE 6-2 DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST FOR DISTRICT WATER SERVICE AREA 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 & Change 2010-2035 Population 38,991 40,234 41,517 41,938 43,481 45,315 13.95% Housing 19,676 20,285 20,912 21,174 21,919 22,783 15.79% Employment 16,812 17,544 18,309 17,703 18,231 18,965 12.81% SOURCE: Soquel Creek Water District, 2016. Water Supply and Demand The Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin, from which the District draws 100 percent of its water supply, is currently in a state of critical overdraft and has been identified/characterized as such by the State of California. The District has declared a Groundwater Emergency (ongoing since 2014). 1 Related to the overdraft conditions, the District has detected seawater intrusion in its groundwater supply aquifers at some coastal monitoring wells and along the entire Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (Monterey Bay) coastline of the District’s service area. In short, 1 Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Soquel Creek Water District Declaring a Groundwater Emergency (Resolution No. 14-22), passed and adopted June 17, 2014. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations the District presently lacks access to a reliable source of water capable of meeting existing and future demands in a sustainable fashion. Hydrologic analysis has concluded that a supplemental water supply is required to restore groundwater levels basin-wide. To achieve a sustainable level of pumping, it is estimated that the District would need to limit its net average groundwater withdrawals to no more than 2,300 acrefeet per year (afy). 2 This is also the estimated pumping limit required to achieve basin sustainability by 2040, as mandated by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Table 6-3 shows the District’s projected demand over the 20-year period between 2020 and 2040. As the table indicates, with pumping limited to 2,300 afy, the District would experience an estimated shortfall between 1,000 and 1,600 afy during this time. TABLE 6-3 PROJECTED SOQUEL CREEK WATER DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND (AFY) 2020-2040 Year 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Adjusted Demand (afy)a 3,900 3,800 3,500 3,400 3,400 Limited GW Pumping Goal to Restore Protective Levels (afy)b 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 (1,600) (1,200) (1,100) (1,100) (1,100) Estimated Supply Shortfall (afy)c NOTES: a Demands from 2015 Urban Water Management Plan adjusted to include water conservation. b Estimates by HydroMetrics to restore the basin in 20 years. October 2015 "Updated Sustainable Yield Estimates and Pumping Goals to Achieve Recovery TM." c Values in parentheses represent negative numbers. SOURCE: Carollo 2017. Soquel Creek Water District has been in Stage 3 Water Shortage & Groundwater Emergency since 2014 due to the community’s long-term groundwater supply shortage, compounded by drought in years 2012-2015. The 2017-2018 winter rainfall total was 62% of average. Soquel Creek Water district continues is conservative goal for 2018 and 2019 to use 25% less water than in 2013. To achieve this goal, District residents must meet the annual average water use guideline of 50 gallons per person per day. If past patterns of California land-use change continue, projected water needs by the year 2062 would increase beyond current supply (USGS, 2016). Santa Cruz County is facing a critical housing shortage and high housing costs. The County and the City of Capitola want to expand access to affordable housing for residents. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) have the potential to help ease the housing shortage by providing affordable housing. The County and the City of Capitola is waiving or reducing certain requirements and fees to encourage more homeowners to construct ADUs. Also new state laws 2 The District board set the desired level of risk and uncertainty at 70 percent and based its pumping goal on maintaining proportion of consumptive use. This is represented in estimates for groundwater flow offshore required to prevent seawater intrusion and recharge reduction due to climate change; both of which are based on 70th percentile of their respective models’ simulations (HydroMetrics WRI, 2015). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations have been enacted to make ADUs easier and less costly. These changes affect both housing density and water demand. Development Policies and Plans County of Santa Cruz Various ordinances contained in the County’s municipal code dictate how growth and development occurs. In particular, Measure J was passed in 1978 by County voters to manage growth in the County. The passage of this measure resulted in the development of Title 17, Community Development, of the municipal code which establishes the County’s Growth Management Ordinance. This ordinance sets policies that govern future growth and development in the County, and specifically regulates the character, location, amount, and timing of future development. The ordinance includes: (1) the establishment of urban and rural boundaries (Chapter 17.02); (2) the program for developing the annual population growth goal (Chapter 17.04); and (3) affordable housing requirements and incentives (Chapters 17.10 and 17.12). The County’s 1994 General Plan discusses potential future changes in population, housing, and jobs that could result from buildout under the General Plan. An EIR was prepared and certified for the General Plan in 1994. The Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Cruz County 1993 General Plan and Local Coastal Program (General Plan EIR) notes that the General Plan accommodates growth, but would not induce growth, and that future growth under the General Plan would be encouraged to occur within the Urban Services Line in the Aptos, Carbonera, Live Oak, Pajaro Valley, and Soquel planning areas. Buildout estimates for the General Plan indicate that by 2005, the County’s population in these five urban planning areas would increase by 14,479 people to 81,109 people (an annual growth rate of 1.3 percent), the number of housing units in these planning areas would increase by 5,561 units to 32,998, and the number of jobs would increase by 41,500 to 146,400 countywide (Santa Cruz County, 1993). The General Plan buildout year was originally intended to be 2005. Although the planning horizon has passed for the General Plan, its projected growth rates and the predicted impacts of growth are used to characterize the Project’s potential future growth-inducing impacts. This approach is likely conservative, given the General Plan’s growth rate is notably higher than that projected by AMBAG, but is nevertheless used here because the General Plan EIR represent the most recent available analysis of potential growth impacts prepared by the County. The General Plan EIR’s analysis of potential effects related to growth concluded that General Plan implementation would result in environmental impacts. A detailed summary of potential effects identified in the EIR are presented in Appendix E. A subset of those effects – those which could not be reduced to less than significant levels with available mitigation – are summarized here. The General Plan EIR identified these significant and unavoidable impacts: • Increased demand for police service. To maintain existing level of police service seven additional patrol deputies would be needed to serve the urban area by buildout (nine additional County-wide). • Required additional neighborhood parkland in Aptos, Pajaro Valley, and Soquel. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations • Existing and planned Live Oak Elementary School District facilities would not be sufficient to accommodate student populations generated by General Plan buildout, as General Plan would generate about 715 students. • 2,482 additional students who would attend Pajaro Valley Unified School District. This would contribute to existing overcapacity problems at the PVUSD. • High school students generated from buildout of the Live Oak, Soquel, and Carbonera planning areas under the General Plan would exceed the capacity of the District’s high schools. New school facilities would be needed. • 520 additional students and would exceed growth levels projected by the Soquel Unified Elementary School District. • Increased student enrollment within the Scotts Valley Union School District by 98 students. Existing and planned school facilities would not be sufficient this increase. • Water demand in the Pajaro Valley planning area would increase by 801 acre feet per year. The Pajaro Valley aquifer is currently in overdraft, and seawater intrusion has impacted coastal areas due to overpumping. Additional water demand could increase the existing imbalance between groundwater pumping and groundwater recharge. Santa Cruz County’s adopted Housing Element (2015-2023) includes objectives to construct 1,833 new housing units, of which 636 would be for low- to extremely-low-income households, 262 for moderate-income households, and 935 for above-moderate household by 2023 (Santa Cruz County, 2016). City of Capitola The City’s General Plan Update Final EIR presents estimates of potential future changes in population, housing, and jobs that could result from buildout under the general plan. The buildout projections presented in the EIR reflect the estimates the City believes to be reasonably foreseeable under the Plan by 2035. The EIR notes that the City of Capitola is predominantly urbanized, and that future growth under the Plan would primarily occur through infill development and redevelopment of currently developed sites. Buildout estimates developed for the EIR indicate that by the year 2035, the City’s population would increase by 280 to 10,198 people, the number of housing units would increase by 80 to 5,614 units, and jobs would increase by 1,200 to 7,370 (City of Capitola, 2013). The General Plan Update Final EIR’s analysis of potential effects related to growth concluded that buildout according to the general plan could result in environmental impacts. A detailed summary of potential effects identified in the EIR are presented in Appendix E. A subset of those effects – those which could not be reduced to less than significant levels with available mitigation – are summarized here. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations The General Plan EIR identified significant and unavoidable impacts related to: • Increases in mobile and stationary source emissions within the City, which could exceed Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 3 air quality standards. • Cumulative regional air quality emissions. • Depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. • Cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts. • Degradation of intersection operations to unacceptable LOS E at the Porter Street and Highway 1 northbound ramps intersection during the AM peak hour in 2035. • Cumulative transportation impacts. • Insufficient water supplies from existing entitlements in 2035. • Construction of new water facilities. • Cumulative water supply impacts. • Exceedance of Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District’s2 proposed GHG significance threshold of 2,000 MTCO2e per year. • Cumulative greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Capitola’s adopted Housing Element (2015-2023) includes objectives to construct 150 new housing units, of which 62 would be for low- to extremely-low-income households, and 90 of which would be for moderate- to above-moderate-income households (City of Capitola, 2015). 6.1.2 Removal of an Impediment to Growth Growth in an area may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to growth, as well as the removal of planning impediments resulting from changes in land use plans or policies. Physical growth impediments may include non-existent or inadequate access to an area or the lack of essential public services (e.g., sewer service), while planning impediments may include restrictive zoning. As established in the preceding sections, population and development – and associated water demand – within the study area are projected to continue increasing for the foreseeable future. As discussed in the EIRs for general plans for the District’s service area, planned growth (i.e. buildout) would have environmental effects. As also discussed, the District’s water supply is severely constrained. While the District is presently allowing new service connections, it currently requires new connections and remodels to offset anticipated water use by 200% through its Water Demand Offset Program. Despite this program, the District would not be able to meet both projected future demand and its obligations under SGMA without a supplemental water supply. 3 Now known as the Monterey Bay Air Resources District. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations Once operational, the Project would allow the District to return approximately 1,500 afy of purified water to the groundwater basin through aquifer recharge. This would effectively reduce the District’s net average groundwater withdrawals to no more than 2,300 afy, allowing it to meet its projected water demands, while also meeting its obligations under the SGMA mandate of achieving basin sustainability by 2040. Beyond 2040, it is expected that the pumping and facility operations would be conducted in a manner that meets existing and projected demand at that time and be responsive to protective groundwater level conditions, considering general plan projections and housing allocations, in accordance with the applicable Urban Water Management Plan, and the Groundwater Sustainability Plan required under SGMA. The Santa Cruz County and Capitola general plan EIRs, both identify impacts related to water supply, including groundwater supply, as significant impacts of planned growth. In general, these impacts identify insufficient supply to meet demands associated with projected development under the general plans. With respect to the impacts of potential over-pumping of the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin and the associated threat of further seawater intrusion, the Project is sized to enable the District to “repay” the groundwater basin, over an approximately 20year period, the amount of water that it has historically and projected to pump in excess of that which can be sustained by the basin. The supply to be provided by the Project would thus help address the potential impacts of over-pumping the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. Accordingly, the Project would be expected to lessen some of the potential significant effects identified in the Santa Cruz County and Capitola general plan EIRs, related to water supply. At the same time, by improving water supply reliability and sustainability within the District’s service area (including the portions of unincorporated Santa Cruz County and Capitola), the Project would remove a potential barrier to realizing planned growth under these general plans. And as noted above, achieving buildout under the general plans would result in a number of significant environmental effects. The Santa Cruz County and Capitola general plan EIRs identify mitigation measures to reduce the significance of many potential impacts of planned growth. However, even with application of mitigation, the EIRs both conclude a number of significant impacts would remain. Given that Santa Cruz County and Capitola have each concluded that no available mitigation could further reduce these effects, and because the District does not have the ability to regulate land use in the County or City or otherwise require additional mitigation for projects in these areas, these effects would remain significant and unavoidable. By improving the District’s water supply sustainability, the Pure Water Soquel Project would support a degree of planned growth within the District’s service area. The Project would not directly contribute to population growth, or the creation of additional housing or jobs within the District’s service area, as it would require only limited construction and operation of water supply facilities and infrastructure. However, the Project could indirectly support population, housing, and economic growth by removing water supply limitations as an obstacle to growth. As explained previously in the context of the Santa Cruz County and Capitola general plan EIRs, development in the District’s service area planned and approved through the general plan process would have environmental impacts related to population, housing, and economic growth. These environmental impacts are the indirect effects of growth that would be supported in part by the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations Project. Detailed summaries of these impacts are presented in Appendix E. Some of the indirect effects of growth identified in the EIRs prepared for those general plans would be significant and unavoidable. As enumerated in Section 6.1.1, Population, Water Supply, and Land Use (subsection Development Policies and Plans), these impacts generally concern air quality, aesthetics, hydrology and water quality, land use, public services, utilities, transportation, and greenhouse gas emissions. 6.2 Significant Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR identify significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided by the Project, including those that can be mitigated, but not to a less-than-significant level. The analysis in Chapter 4 identifies all adverse impacts associated with the Project and those impacts that cannot be avoided. The analysis in Chapter 4 determined that the Project would result in impacts related to noise that, even with implementation of mitigation measures, would remain significant and unavoidable. These impacts are summarized below: • Noise impacts on residential receptors during construction of a purification facility at the Chanticleer Avenue or Headquarters-West Annex sites, drilling of recharge wells at the Willowbrook Lane and/or Monterey Avenue sites, and installation of pipelines at various locations would remain significant and unavoidable, even with implementation of mitigation measures. See Section 4.13, Noise and Vibration, for additional information on this impact. • Although construction noise is temporary in nature, it is reasonably foreseeable that construction of the Project and one or more nearby cumulative projects (see Chapter 5, Table 5-1) could occur simultaneously. Noise from simultaneous construction of these projects could result in a significant cumulative impact on sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the above-referenced sites. Project construction activities could have a cumulatively significant contribution to the impact. Application of recommended mitigation identified in Section 4.13 would reduce construction noise exposure at nearby sensitive receptors. However, due to the close proximally between Project construction sites and nearby sensitive receptors, it is unlikely that any additional construction noise reduction measures would be capable of further mitigating cumulative construction noise levels to levels that would meet the identified thresholds. Therefore, the Project’s contribution to a temporary cumulative impact related to noise would be significant and unavoidable. • The Project could indirectly support growth by removing some water supply limitations as an obstacle to growth, thereby enabling a degree of growth under the approved general plans within the District’s service area. The effect would be significant and unavoidable. See Section 6.1, Growth-Inducing Impacts, for additional information. 6.3 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR analyze the extent to which the Project’s primary and secondary effects would create significant irreversible environmental changes and make irretrievable commitments of non-renewable resources. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations A resource commitment is considered irreversible when primary or secondary impacts from its use limit future use options. Irreversible commitment applies primarily to non-renewable resources, such as minerals or cultural resources, and to those resources that are renewable only over long-time spans, such as soil productivity. A resource commitment is considered irretrievable when the use or consumption of the resource is neither renewable nor recoverable for use by future generations. Irretrievable commitment applies to the loss of production, harvest, or natural resources. The Project would involve two types of resources: (1) general industrial resources including fuels and construction materials; and (2) Project-specific resources such as land, biotic and cultural resources at the Project facility sites. This section identifies any resources that would be lost permanently as a result of undertaking the Project. Implementation of the Project would result in a significant irreversible commitment of natural resources during construction and operation through the use of fossil fuels, energy and construction materials such as concrete, steel, and plastics. During the life of the Project, the land used for the facilities would be committed to the Project. Project components, including the AWPF, recharge wells, and monitoring wells, which could permanently occupy approximately 2 acres via physical siting and enclosures. This land could be used for other purposes in the future; however, the baseline condition of the land would either be irretrievable or renewable in an undeterminable timeframe. Siting of the AWPF, recharge wells, and monitoring wells could displace non-native grassland and riparian habitats. Conveyance pipelines would be below ground or attached to existing bridges. Following project construction, the pipeline alignments would be returned to existing use conditions and continue to serve as roads, railroad right-of-ways, and bridges. Accidents, such as the release of hazardous materials, could trigger irreversible environmental damage. As discussed in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazards Materials, construction and operation of the Project would involve limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, solvents, paints, and other chemicals. An accidental spill of any of these substances could affect water and/or groundwater quality and, if a spill were to occur of significant quantity, the release could pose a hazard to construction workers, the public, and the environment. Improper storage, use, handling, or accidental spilling of such materials could result in a hazard to the public or the environment. However, compliance with the various regulations regarding the safe transport, use, and storage of hazardous materials (refer to Section 4.9.3, Regulatory Framework) as well as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit requirements would ensure that public health and safety risks are maintained at acceptable levels. Therefore, significant irreversible changes from accidental releases are not anticipated. Based on the above, the Project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes. _________________________ Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-11 ESA / 160164 June 2018 6. Other CEQA Considerations 6.4 References Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), 2014. 2014 Regional Growth Forecast, Technical Documentation. Adopted June 11, 2014. Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) 2017. Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Final Draft. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District by Carollo Engineers. November 2017. City of Capitola, 2015. City of Capitola 2015-2023 Housing Element. Adopted on November 25, 2015. City of Capitola, 2014. General Plan Update Final EIR for the City of Capitola. Prepared by PlaceWorks, in collaboration with RBF Consulting. March 27, 2014. Santa Cruz County, 1993. 1994 Santa Cruz County General Plan and Local Coastal Program EIR. Certified May 1994. Santa Cruz County, 2016. 2015 Santa Cruz County Housing Element. Adopted February 9, 2016, certified April 28, 2016. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2016. Urban Water Management Plan 2015. Prepared by Water Systems Consulting for the Soquel Creek Water District. June 2016. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2016. Changing California Land Uses will Shape Water Demands in 2062. May 18, 2016. Available online at: https://www.usgs.gov/news/changing-california-land-uses-will-shape-water-demands2062. Accessed on June 28, 2018. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 6-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 7 Alternatives 7.1 Introduction This chapter presents the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) alternatives analysis for the proposed Pure Water Soquel Project (Project). CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) states that an environmental impact report (EIR) must describe and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the project’s basic objectives but would also avoid or substantially lessen any identified significant adverse environmental effects of the project. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6) set forth the following criteria for selecting and evaluating alternatives: • Identifying Alternatives. The selection of alternatives is limited to those that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, are feasible, and would attain most of the basic objectives of the project. Factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of an alternative include site suitability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, economic viability, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to an alternative site. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose impacts cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative. The specific alternative of “no project” must also be evaluated. • Range of Alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative, but must consider and discuss a reasonable range of feasible alternatives in a manner that will foster informed decision-making and public participation. The “rule of reason” governs the selection and consideration of EIR alternatives, requiring that an EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The lead agency (the Soquel Creek Water District) Soquel Creek Water District) is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives to be examined and for disclosing its rationale for choosing the alternatives. • Evaluation of Alternatives. EIRs are required to include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. Matrices may be used to display the major characteristics and the environmental effects of each alternative. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects that would not result from the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives 7.2 Approach to CEQA Alternatives Selection This section describes the process of developing a reasonable range of Project alternatives for analysis in this EIR. Consistent with CEQA, the approach to alternatives selection for this EIR focused on identifying alternatives that: (1) could meet most of the basic objectives of the project while reducing one or more of its significant impacts, (2) could foster informed decision-making and public participation, and (3) could be feasibly implemented. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that “the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the potential feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” The process of developing a reasonable range of Project alternatives in this EIR included consideration of the following: • Project Objectives, which are included in Chapter 3, Project Description, and restated below in Section 7.2.1, Project Objectives. • Significant Impacts of the Project, which are described in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures and Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts, and summarized below in Section 7.2.2, Significant Environmental Impacts. The consideration of impacts includes both significant impacts that could be mitigated to less than significant levels and impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable, with mitigation. • Types of alternatives to the Project, including – Engineering and locational alternatives. Project planning and engineering feasibility included consideration of a number of additional site locations and treatment technologies. This chapter considers whether other engineering and locational alternatives could constitute potentially feasible alternatives to this Project. – Alternative water supplies. The Pure Water Soquel Project is one of the water supply elements of the District’s Community Water Plan (see Section 2.2.2, Community Water Plan). The system-wide elements of that plan include water conservation, protective groundwater management, and additional water supply elements – Pure Water Soquel, river water transfers with the City of Santa Cruz, desalination from Moss Landing, and stormwater capture. The water conservation and protective groundwater management elements of the Community Water Plan are underway, while the additional water supply elements are each in separate planning phases, as described in Section 2.2.2. While each element of the Community Water Plan is underway separately, this chapter considers whether an element of the plan or a variation of a plan concept could also qualify as a potentially feasible CEQA alternative to this Project. – Public and agency scoping comments, and other input received. The District received a range of suggestions during the EIR scoping period. These included alternative AWPF Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives sites, such as rural, non-residential, and less-populated areas, among others; alternative water supplies, such as atmospheric extraction, excess water from the City of Santa Cruz, Nearly Lagoon, Loch Lomond Reservoir, grey water, rain water, and stormwater, among others; and alternative water conveyance facilities, such as rail car transport of source water from SC WWTF to treatment site location. This chapter considers whether any recommendations received during the scoping process (where they might be different than the concepts described above) could qualify as a potentially feasible CEQA alternative to this Project. From that process, a reasonable range of alternatives that would meet most project’s basic objectives, would reduce one or more significant impacts of the Project, and were found to be feasible was defined and are described in Section 7.3, Analysis of CEQA Alternatives. However, some alternatives were eliminated from consideration based on their inability to meet most of the Project’s basic objectives, their infeasibility, and/or their inability to reduce the project’s environmental impacts. These alternatives and the reason(s) they were eliminated from further consideration are described in detail in Section 7.5, Alternatives Considered, but Rejected from Further Analysis. 7.2.1 Project Objectives As discussed in Section 3.3, Project Objectives, the overall goal of the Project is to recharge the local groundwater basin with 1,500 afy of purified water for indirect potable reuse (IPR) and thereby improve its reliability as a water supply source. The specific objectives (with the first 3 being the key or basic objectives) of the Project are to: • Replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under the SGMA. • Develop an affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant supplemental water source that contributes to the diversification of the District’s water supply portfolio and enhances resiliency. • Continue to provide District customers with a high-quality and safe water supply. • Provide additional environmental benefits, such as to surface and marine waters. 7.2.2 Significant Environmental Impacts This section summarizes the significant impacts of the Project, as analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures, that were considered during the alternatives identification process. The significant impacts of the Project could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, with the exception of temporary construction noise impacts; as described below. Project construction would result in the following significant short-term impacts, identified in Chapter 4. As noted above, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation, with the exception of construction phase noise impacts at some project sites: Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-3 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives • Air Quality. Project construction would generate fugitive dust and involve the use of a variety of off-road diesel-fueled equipment that would emit exhaust containing air pollutants. Maximum daily construction emissions of NOx would exceed the MBARD’s significance threshold, resulting in a significant impact (Impact 4.3-1 and 4.3-3, less than significant with mitigation). DPM emissions from off-road diesel equipment could expose sensitive receptors to TAC’s This health risk is considered significant prior to the incorporation of mitigation measures (Impact 4.3-4, less than significant with mitigation). • Biological Resources. Project construction activities could result in significant impacts to biological resources located or potentially located in the vicinity of some of the project sites and construction disturbance areas, including staging areas. As described in Impact 4.4-1, Project construction in some locations could disrupt breeding and foraging habitat for nesting birds, raptors, and bats and overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies. Work within 150 feet of streams could result in potentially significant impacts from erosion, sediment transport, and hazardous waste in waterways, which could have a substantial adverse effect on the Western pond turtle, special-status fish, and amphibians. Temporary loss of habitat could negatively impact Ohlone tiger beetle and rare plants (Impact 4.4-1, less than significant with mitigation). Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and on Coastal terrace prairie (Impact 4.4-2, less than significant with mitigation). The Project could conflict with applicable local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Tree removal and trimming associated with clearing and grubbing, or otherwise preparing sites for construction, could occur, and could adversely affect trees protected by local ordinances (Impact 4.4-5, less than significant with mitigation). • Cultural and Tribal Resources. Ground-disturbing activities during construction could adversely impact known or currently unknown archaeological sites, historic sites, and/or human remains (that may have been interred outside of formal cemeteries), including those that are considered tribal cultural resources, a significant impact (Impacts 4.5-1, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, and 4.16-1, less than significant with mitigation). • Energy Conservation. Construction and decommissioning activities could result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy if equipment is not well maintained, if equipment is left to idle when not in use, or if haul trips are not planned efficiently. If construction and decommissioning use large amounts of fuel or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner, a significant impact would result (Impact 4.6-1, less than significant with mitigation). • Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Construction activities at the SC WWTF and along the conveyance pipeline alignments could expose workers, the public, and the environment to residual levels of fuels, solvents, and/or metals in the soil, a significant impact (Impact 4.9-3, less than significant with mitigation). Additionally, conveyance pipelines built along Highway 1 and Soquel Avenue, which are identified as Key Transportation Routes, would require temporary road closures. If the lane closures interfere with emergency responses or evacuations, this could result in a significant impact (Impacts 4.9-4, less than significant with mitigation). • Hydrology and Water Quality. Project construction could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality (4.11-1, less than significant with mitigation). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-4 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives • Noise and Vibration. Construction-related noise levels could exceed local daytime noise standards or substantially exceed ambient noise levels for sensitive receptors in close proximity to construction activities. Nighttime construction activities associated with 24-hour drilling of recharge wells could exceed nighttime noise standards. Feasible mitigation measures are described for construction-related noise; however, in some project areas, they would not reduce noise levels to below noise standards. (Impact 4.13-1 and 4.13-2, significant and unavoidable with mitigation). The period of time that a nearby sensitive receptor could experience noise levels that exceed noise standards or substantially exceed ambient noise levels ranges from one or more days for pipeline construction (assumed to proceed at approximately 100 linear feet per day), 2 weeks for night-time well drilling at the Monterey recharge well site, and 24 months for day-time construction at the Chanticleer AWPF site. The use of vibratory rollers during pipeline construction could cause cosmetic or structural damage to historic buildings, a significant impact (4.13-4, less than significant with mitigation). Equipment used to construct the Project could operate at the same time as a nearby project’s construction equipment, which could result in a cumulative impact (Impact CU-NOI, significant and unavoidable with mitigation). • Transportation. Pipeline construction would require the temporary closure of travel lanes, which would temporarily reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic delays on area roadways (Impact 4.15-1, less than significant with mitigation). Project construction would cause temporary and intermittent impedance to access to adjacent roadways and land uses (4.15-3, less than significant with mitigation). Construction would also temporarily decrease the performance of alternative transportation facilities, causing temporary and intermittent conflicts with all modes of travel (4.15-4, less than significant with mitigation). Several projects (listed in Table 5-1 and shown on Figure 5-1) are presently or expected to soon be under construction and could overlap with the Project’s anticipated 2019-2022 construction schedule, thereby causing regional and local transportation impacts (Impact CU-TRA, less than significant with mitigation). 7.3 Analysis of CEQA Alternatives This section describes the project alternatives analyzed in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a). The three alternatives to the proposed Project analyzed in this EIR are: • Alternative 1: No Project • Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase • Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Desalination Plant This section evaluates the impacts of the selected alternatives relative to those of the proposed project, based on available information and reasonable assumptions about how each alternative would be implemented. For each alternative, this section presents the following: • A description of the alternative (including a brief overview in Table 7-1), including the rationale for its selection, and associated facility improvements and auxiliary components • An evaluation of the alternative’s ability to meet project goals and objectives • Analysis of the environmental impacts of each alternative compared to those of the proposed project Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-5 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-1 CEQA ALTERNATIVES Alternative How Does the Alternative Differ from the Proposed Project? Alternative 1: No Project – The District would not construct the proposed AWPF, recharge well facilities or distribution pipelines, and the District’s municipal water supply and the SC WWTF would continue to operate as they do under existing conditions. • The District would not construct new water purification facilities, pipelines, or recharge wells. • The District would not produce 1,500 afy, or 1.3 mgd, of advanced purified water under the project. • The District would construct an AWPF capable of producing purified water and recharging approximately 1,200 afy to the groundwater basin; coupled with the purchase of up to 300 afy of surface water from the City of Santa Cruz. • The District would construct up to 3 recharge wells, same as under the Project. • District and City of Santa Cruz facility improvements would not be required to accommodate the surface water purchase; however, additional water quality treatment or adjustment of existing treatments could be required to ensure compatibility of the surface water source with the District’s groundwater source and, a minimum, additional reconfiguration of pumping operations, in addition to reconfigurations required for the recharge operations, • This alternative would have a combined capacity of 1,500 afy, or 1.3 mgd, of supplemental water supply and groundwater basin replenishment. • For local water supply purposes, the District would construct a seawater/brackish water desalination plant in the middle of the District service area along with the associated intake structure, intake pipeline, pump stations, treatment facilities, and distribution pipelines. • The District would not construct new AWPF, recharge well facilities, and associated distribution pipelines. • The District would produce a sustained capacity of approximately 1,500 afy, or 1.3 mgd of desalinated water, to achieve the project objectives (same capacity as the proposed project). Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase – The District would construct a 1,200 afy AWPF, and purchase surface water from the City of Santa Cruz. The same distribution pipelines would be required; along with potential need for upgrade/new facilities to accommodate surface water purchase. Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Desalination Plant – The District would construct a desalination plant to supplement or replace the water supply that would be provided by the Project. Table 7-2 summarizes the environmental impacts of the selected alternatives compared to those of the proposed project. This table presents the significant impacts of the proposed project. Impacts that would be less-than-significant under the Project, but whose severity would be different under the project alternatives, are discussed in the following sections. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-6 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS Air Quality Impact 4.3-1: The Project would generate emissions of criteria air pollutants that could contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard during construction. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The air quality analysis focuses on total emissions associated with the Project. Project construction would involve the use of a variety of off-road diesel-fueled equipment that would emit exhaust containing air pollutants. Fugitive dust would also be generated by on-site ground disturbing and material handling activities. In addition, construction haul trucks and workers’ vehicles would generate exhaust and fugitive dust emissions off site. The air pollutant emissions would be generated at various construction sites throughout Santa Cruz County. Impact 4.3-3: Project construction activities could conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The most recently adopted air quality plan for the Project area is the 2012-2015 AQMP. Project-related short-term construction emissions associated with all sites and all five configurations would exceed the significance threshold for NOx, representing a significant impact (prior to mitigation) related to the potential to cause a violation of an ozone and/or NO2 ambient air quality standard. Impact 4.3-4: Project construction could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) DPM emissions from off-road diesel equipment could expose sensitive receptors to TAC’s at all Project sites. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR No Impact Reduced Similar to Greater+ There would be no project construction, thus no emissions would be generated that could contribute to a violation of an air quality standard. Construction required for the AWPF treatment processing and storage components of the overall treatment facility would be reduced, compared to the Project. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. Thus, while emissions associated with construction would be slightly reduced compared to the Project, it is expected that the impact would be also be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Alternative 3 would require a similar sized treatment facility as the Project; and would avoid construction of recharge wells, and transmission pipelines between the Santa Cruz WWTF and the District and would instead require connection to the closest existing distribution pipeline. However, Alternative 3 would require tunneling of an intake pipeline and brine discharge pipeline that could be up to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The overall emissions associated with construction of Alternative 3 could be similar to or greater than the Project, depending on the overall construction effort required. Depending on the level of emissions associated with Alternative 3 construction; impacts could be significant and unavoidable with mitigation. No Impact Reduced Similar to Greater Under this alternative, there would be no conflicts with the AQMP associated with constructionrelated emissions as there would be no project construction. See discussion under Impact 4.3.2 See discussion under Impact 4.3.2 No Impact Reduced Similar to Greater Because there would be no construction under this Alternative, no sensitive receptors would be exposed to pollutants. See discussion under Impact 4.3.2. See discussion under Impact 4.3.2 7-7 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Biological Resources Impact 4.4-1: Project construction and operation could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on a species identified as candidate, sensitive or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project construction could disrupt breeding and foraging habitat for nesting birds, raptors, and bats. Construction could disrupt overwintering habitat for monarch butterflies. Work within 150 feet of streams could result in potentially significant impacts from erosion, sediment transport, and hazardous waste in waterways, which could have a substantial adverse effect on Western pond turtle, specialstatus fish, and amphibians. No Impact Greater Greater There would be no project construction of pipelines or facilities; therefore, there would be no impact on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The overall areas of disturbance under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project. Alternative 2 does not avoid construction near Wharf Road, streams, Schwan Lagoon, and other areas of higher sensitivity for biological resources. While construction at the AWPF would be slightly reduced; the overall area of short-term construction activities would likely remain the same, to allow for construction staging and equipment storage. Thus, Alternative 2 would have a similar Less than Significant with Mitigation impact to special-status species as the Project. Alternative 3 would require a similar sized treatment facility as the Project; and would result in similar impacts to nesting birds, bats, and other special-status species that could be present at the treatment facility site. It is expected that Alternative 3 would have similar Less than Significant with Mitigation impacts to terrestrial special-status species as the Project for construction of the treatment facility. However, The No Project Alternative would not reduce treated effluent discharge to the Monterey Bay and thus would not provide any environmental benefits as under the Project Temporary loss of habitat could negatively impact Ohlone tiger beetle and rare plants. Alternative 2 would result in a new long-term surface water use that would result in reduction in overall surface water supplies and stream flow volumes and, particularly during drought conditions, could affect fisheries and other aquatic species, wetland/riparian habitat, and other water dependent natural resources. Alternative 3 would avoid construction of recharge wells and transmission pipelines between the Santa Cruz WWTF and the District, avoiding areas of higher sensitivity for biological resources (Wharf Road, streams, Schwan Lagoon, etc.). However, the brine discharge from a desalination facility would result in greater impacts on marine resources than the Project because of the increased volume of flow and concentration of salts. However, any in-water and tunneling activity associated with the intake and brine discharge pipelines could result in impacts to sensitive marine species that would not occur under the Project. Impact 4.4-2: Project construction could have a substantial adverse effect on a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations (indigenous stands of Monterey pine) or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (coastal terrace prairie north of Schwan Lagoon, coastal brackish marsh in San Lorenzo River, and north central coast drainage Sacramento sucker/roach river in the San Lorenzo River), or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR No Impact Greater Greater There would be no project construction of pipelines or facilities; therefore, there would be no impacts on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans. See discussion under Impact 4.4-1 See discussion under Impact 4.4-1 7-8 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Biological Resources (cont.) Project construction along the pipeline alignment could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat through substantial erosion, siltation or pollution. Project construction of the pipeline could have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat and coastal terrace prairie habitat through compaction of soil, excavation of soils and the native seedbank, and introduction of non-native seeds. Impact 4.4-5: Project construction and operation could conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (Less than significant with Mitigation) No Impact Similar to Reduced Similar to Greater Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. If tree removal at the West Annex-Headquarters site or Chanticleer site could be reduced/avoided through a reduced site layout; impacts associated with conflicts with local tree ordinances or policies could be reduced. The Alternative 3 site located west of State Park Drive (or similar site) is substantially larger than the Project AWPF sites; but includes a number of existing mature trees. It is anticipated that construction of a desalination facility at this site would require removal and trimming of similar or greater number of trees that are potentially protected by local ordinances; and would require similar mitigation measures as the Project to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. No Impact Similar Similar to Reduced There would be no project; therefore, no historic resources would be adversely affected. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. While construction at the AWPF would be slightly reduced; the overall area of short-term construction activities would likely remain the same, to allow for construction staging and equipment storage. The Alternative 3 onshore construction area would be less than under the proposed project, avoiding some of the known archaeological sites. However, tunneling associated with the Alternative could affect other known and unknown resources. Alternative 3 would have a similar to reduced Less than Significant with Mitigation impact as the Project. There would be no project construction of pipelines or facilities; therefore, there would be As discussed under Impacts 4.4-1 and 4.4-2, the Project no impacts to biological resources could result in potentially significant impacts to biological that would conflict with local resources, which could conflict with applicable local policies policies or ordinances. or ordinances protecting biological resources. Tree removal and trimming associated with clearing and grubbing, or otherwise preparing sites for construction. Cultural Resources Impact 4.5-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The project would have a significant impact if it caused a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Nine archaeological sites have been identified in or immediately adjacent to the Project area. Ground disturbing activities could uncover previously unknown archaeological resources at these sites or elsewhere. Because the overall areas of disturbance under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project; and would be in the vicinity of known cultural resources sites, as well as potential occurrence of previously unknown resources, Alternative 2 would have a similar Less than Significant with Mitigation impact as the Project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-9 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Cultural Resources (cont.) Known historical resources that could be affected by the Project, have a potential for a significant impact. The archaeological sites have been identified as a result of the archaeological resources assessment prepared for the proposed Project. No Impact Similar Similar to Reduced No archaeological resources would be adversely affected. See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 Impact 4.5-3: The Project could potentially disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No Impact Similar Similar to Reduced No human remains would be disturbed. See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 No Impact Reduced Similar to Greater There would be no project construction, thus no fuel or energy would be used. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. Thus, while use of energy associated with construction and decommissioning would be slightly reduced compared to the Project, it is expected that the impact would be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Alternative 3 would require a similar sized treatment facility as the Project but would use more energy to desalt ocean water than the Project; would avoid construction of recharge wells, and reduce transmission pipelines required. However, Alternative 3 would require tunneling of an intake pipeline and brine discharge pipeline that could be up to 1,000 feet from the shoreline. The overall energy use associated with construction and decommissioning of Alternative 3 could be similar to or greater than the Project, depending on the overall construction effort required. It is expected that the impact would be Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Similar Similar to Reduced There would be no project construction of pipelines or facilities; therefore there would be no hazardous materials site for the project to be located on. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. While construction at the AWPF would be slightly reduced; the overall area of short-term construction The Alternative 3 onshore construction area would be less than under the proposed project, avoiding some of the known hazardous materials sites. However, tunneling associated with the Alternative could affect other known and unknown Ground-disturbing activities as part of project construction could encounter human remains. Disturbance of human remains would be a significant impact. Energy Conservation Impact 4.6-1: The Project would not use large amounts of fuel or energy in an unnecessary, wasteful, or inefficient manner. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Project construction and decommissioning activities for all sites and facilities could result in wasteful or inefficient use of energy if equipment is not well maintained, if equipment is left to idle when not in use, or if haul trips are not planned efficiently. If construction and decommissioning use large amounts of fuel or energy in a wasteful or inefficient manner, a significant impact would result. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.9-3: The Project would be located on or adjacent to a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-10 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Hazards and Hazardous Materials (cont.) activities would likely remain the same, to allow for construction staging and equipment storage. Construction activities could expose workers, the public, and the environment to residual levels of fuels, solvents, and/or metals in the soil. Impact 4.9-4: The Project could impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction of conveyance pipelines built along Soquel Avenue and adjacent to Highway 1, which are identified as Key Transportation Routes, would require temporary road closures. If the lane closures interfere with emergency responses or evacuations, this could result in a significant impact. sites. It is expected that the impact would be Less than Significant with Mitigation Because the overall areas of disturbance under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project; and would be in the vicinity of known hazardous materials, Alternative 2 would have a similar Less than Significant with Mitigation impact as the Project. No Impact Similar Reduced There would be no project construction of pipelines or facilities; therefore there would be no impairment or interference with an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Alternative 2 would include conveyance pipelines along Soquel Avenue and adjacent to Highway 1; similar to the Project. Thus, Alternative 2 would result in a Less than Significant with Mitigation impact associated with impairment of implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. Alternative 3 eliminates construction activities along Soquel Avenue and adjacent to Highway 1. Thus, Alternative 3 would reduce impacts associated with interference with implementation of an adopted emergency response plan. It is expected that the impact would be Less than Significant with Mitigation No Impact Similar Reduced to Greater Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would be no constructionrelated runoff. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. While construction at the AWPF would be slightly reduced; the overall area of short-term construction activities would likely remain the same, to allow for construction staging and equipment storage. Alternative 3 would require a similar sized treatment facility as the Project; and would result in similar construction impact associated with potential site runoff effects on water quality. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.11-1: Project construction could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. (less than significant with mitigation) Project construction at all sites and pipeline alignments could result in a violation of water quality standards and/or waste discharge requirements, substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or otherwise substantially degrade water quality. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR However, the No Project Alternative would not provide supplemental water supply or a source of groundwater recharge. Under the No Project Alternative, seawater intrusion would increase, resulting in violation of water quality standards of the District drinking water supplies; or restrict the availability of groundwater used for municipal water supply for the District’s service area.. Because the overall areas of disturbance under Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project; Alternative 2 would have a similar Less than Significant with Mitigation impact as the Project associated with potential water quality degradation. 7-11 Alternative 3 would avoid construction of recharge wells and reduce transmission, avoiding areas near streams and other waterways. However, any in-water and tunneling activity associated with the intake and brine discharge pipelines could result in impacts to water quality that would not occur under the Project. It is expected that the impact would be Less than Significant with Mitigation. Operating a desalination facility may result in ocean discharges of highly saline water than may violate the Ocean Plan thresholds. ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Noise and Vibration Impact 4.13-1: Construction of the Project could result in generation and exposure of persons to, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plans or noise ordinances. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would be no constructionrelated noise. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. While construction at the AWPF would be slightly reduced; the overall area of short-term construction activities would likely remain the same, to allow for construction staging and equipment storage. Further, the types of construction equipment used, the proposed construction hours, and distance between construction activities and sensitive receptors would be similar to the Project. Construction of a desalination facility would involve similar construction activities and equipment as the Project. However, the site considered for a desalination is large enough that construction activities could be sited sufficiently far from nearby sensitive receptors to avoid significant and unavoidable construction noise levels in excess of local noise standards, with the possible exception of limited pipeline construction which could be in proximity of sensitive receptors. Construction activities at the Chanticleer Site and the Headquarters-West Annex Site could exceed the applicable jurisdiction’s daytime noise standards for sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. Construction activities at the Willowbrook Lane Recharge Well Site, the Monterey Avenue Recharge Well Site, and conveyance pipeline alignments could exceed both daytime and nighttime noise standards. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have a similar Significant and Unavoidable impact as the Project associated with noise generation in excess of standards. Impact 4.13-2: Project construction could result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) Project construction could result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Impact 4.13-4: The Project could result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The use of vibratory rollers could cause cosmetic or structural damage to historic buildings, a significant impact. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would not be any increase in ambient noise levels. See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would not be any use of vibratory rollers. See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 7-12 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Noise and Vibration (cont.) Impact CU-NOI: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to noise and vibration. (Significant and Unavoidable with Mitigation) No Impact Similar Reduced There would be no contribution to any cumulative impacts. See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 See discussion under Impact 4.13-1 No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would be no constructionrelated transportation and circulation effects. Project construction would be reduced for AWPF treatment processing and storage components as the overall treatment facility would be reduced. However, pump stations, pipelines, and recharge well facilities would be the same as the Project. Because pipeline construction would be the same as the Project; temporary closure of travel lanes and associated effects on the performance of the circulation system would be similar to the Project The Alternative 3 construction area would be less than under the proposed project, and would substantially reduce pipeline construction in roadways; reducing the need for temporary closure of travel lanes and associated effects on the performance of the circulation system. While the impact would be reduced, similar mitigation would be required as the Project. No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would be no impedance to access the adjacent roadways and land uses. See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 Equipment used to construct the Project could operate at the same time as a neighboring project’s construction equipment, which could result in a cumulative impact. Transportation Impact 4.15-1: Closure of travel lanes during Project construction would temporarily reduce roadway capacity and increase traffic delays on area roadways, causing temporary and intermittent conflicts with all modes of travel. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) The proposed installation of conveyance pipelines in roadways would require temporary closures of travel lanes, and the effect of pipeline installation on the performance of the circulation system to accommodate all modes of transportation would be to temporarily disrupt existing circulation patterns because of lane blockages. Impact 4.15-3: Pipeline construction would cause temporary and intermittent impedance to access the adjacent roadways and land uses. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction along affected roadways and temporary roadway and lane closures could result in temporarily impaired access to adjacent land uses, driveways, and cross-streets along the pipeline construction routes in the vicinity of the work sites. The lane closures along the proposed pipeline alignments during construction could slow, but would not prevent, traffic access (including emergency vehicle access). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-13 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-2 (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE CEQA ALTERNATIVES Significant Project Impact Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Alternative 1: No Project Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant SHORT-TERM IMPACTS (cont.) Transportation (cont.) Impact 4.15-4: Pipeline construction would not substantially impair access to alternative transportation facilities (public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities), although it could temporarily decrease the performance of such facilities. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) Construction of the proposed treatment facilities, pipelines, and recharge wells would not permanently eliminate or modify alternative transportation corridors or facilities (e.g., bicycle routes or lanes, bus routes/stops, sidewalks). Similar to the effects on automobile traffic from pipeline construction activities (see Impact 4.15-1), temporary closures of travel lanes and sidewalks during Project construction would temporarily increase delays experienced by riders of public transit, bicyclists and pedestrians. Impact CU-TRA: Implementation of the Project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development, could result in a cumulatively significant impact related to transportation and traffic. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) No Impact Similar Reduced Because there would be no construction under this alternative, there would be no impairment to access the alternative transportation facilities. See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 No Impact Similar Reduced There would be no contribution to any cumulative impacts. See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 See discussion under Impact 4.15-1 No Impact Similar Similar to Reduced No tribal cultural resources would be adversely affected. See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 See discussion under Impact 4.5-2 Due to increased traffic and transportation network disruptions, concurrent construction of the Project and other cumulative projects could result in potentially significant cumulative impacts on traffic and transportation access and facilities. Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 4.16-1: The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource. (Less than Significant with Mitigation) There may be archaeological resources and/or human remains that could be considered tribal cultural resources in the Project area and the Project could have an impact on those known resources. Further, if archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during either the implementation of an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan or during ground disturbing activities, impacts to tribal cultural resources could be potentially significant. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-14 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Alternative 1: No Project Alternative CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) requires that EIRs include an evaluation of the No Project Alternative to provide decision-makers with the information necessary to compare the relative impacts of approving the project and not approving the project. The No Project Alternative is defined as a continuation of existing conditions, as well as conditions that are reasonably expected to occur in the event that the proposed project is not implemented. Description of the No Project Alternative In the event that the District does not approve the Pure Water Soquel Project, the proposed AWPF, recharge wells, and associated pump stations, equalization tanks, and distribution pipelines would not be constructed. The SC WWTF would continue to treat approximately, on average,8.1 mgd, which is expected to increase to 8.29 mgd by 2035 (Carollo, 2017). Under the No Project Alternative, the District would not contribute to the State’s mandate under the SGMA to achieve groundwater sustainability by 2040 through implementation of the Project; and would need to seek other opportunities to contribute to this requirement, such as implementing other elements of the Community Water Plan. This would delay achievement of the Project objective related to groundwater basin sustainability. In addition, Project environmental benefits to marine waters from reductions in treated wastewater discharge would not occur, nor would the No Project alternative provide an active seawater intrusion barrier as under the Project. Groundwater pumping in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin would likely continue to increase as forecasted in the Urban Water Management Plan. However, even a continuation of existing pumping rates would likely worsen the seawater intrusion, affecting groundwater quality and triggering water management actions that would reduce pumping rates, including mandatory conservation and water rationing in the District service area. Water rationing and water shortages would likely affect local planning within the area, including a possible moratorium on new and existing water services. Further, increased seawater intrusion and potential reductions in groundwater extraction and water supply availability could affect recreation facilities, emergency water supplies and associated emergency services, and biological resources dependent on surface waters with groundwater connectivity. Even if water consumption remained low future drought and climate change would likely reduce storage and water levels. Ability to Meet Project Objectives The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Project objectives. The local groundwater basin would not be replenished with any additional water supply to prevent further seawater intrusion. A sustainable water supply would not be developed in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under the SGMA. An affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant supplemental water source would not be developed that contributes to the diversification of the District water supply portfolio and enhances resiliency. There would be no additional environmental benefits, such as to surface and marine waters or provision of an active seawater intrusion barrier. The District would need to explore other means to continue to provide District customers with a high-quality and safe water supply. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-15 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Environmental Impacts of the No Project Alternative Compared to those of the Project The No Project Alternative would eliminate all construction and operational impacts at all of the Project sites, avoiding all significant impacts identified for the proposed Project. However, the No Project Alternative would have greater long-term impacts than the Project because groundwater pumping would continue at existing rates, reducing the amount of water in the aquifer and allowing for the increased landward migration of seawater intrusion. Although groundwater levels would continue to change in response to hydrologic conditions and ongoing existing pumping in the Mid-County Groundwater Basin, there is still a high potential for seawater intrusion to continue under the No Project Alternative. Project benefits to surface and marine waters from reductions in treated wastewater discharge would not occur; nor would the No Project Alternative provide an active seawater intrusion barrier. Alternative 2: Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase Description of Alternative 2 Alternative 2 would include construction of a 1,200 afy AWPF at one (or split between two) of the three locations under consideration for the Project. The treatment processes proposed for the AWPF (e.g., MF, RO, and UV AOP) are modular in nature, and so the footprint of the main process building would be reduced by approximately 5 to 10 percent compared to the Project. Similarly, footprints of the process tanks and chemical storage tanks may also be reduced to support the 1,200 afy AWPF capacity. However, facilities such as pumping stations, pipelines, operations facilities (e.g., control room, electrical room, laboratory, and recharge wells) would be the same as the Project. This is because, the Reduced Project would still require the same level of minimum conveyance capacity, operational redundancy of storage and conveyance during maintenance, and other operational activities. To achieve the overarching project goal of recharging the local groundwater basin with 1,500 afy of water and improving the reliability of the groundwater basin as a water supply source, Alternative 2 would include a surface water purchase component of approximately 300 afy from SCWD. The surface water purchase would be from the City’s North coast sources (which have Pre-1914 water rights) that receive treatment at the Graham Hill Water Treatment Plant to meet potable water quality requirements. With the approval and cooperation of the City, the 300 afy would be conveyed through the City and District’s existing water conveyance infrastructure without requiring upgrades or modifications to facilitate the water purchase, with the exception of minor upgrades to existing flow meters or other existing equipment. The existing 5-year pilot study (see Section 2.2.2, Community Water Plan) agreement would need to be extended (by approximately 50 years), with additional conditions and commitments by the City of Santa Cruz and the District, including the guarantee that water would be available to the District yearly and not just during non-drought conditions, similar to the Project. In order to undertake this portion of Alternative 2, the 5-year pilot study (2015-2020) evaluating the feasibility and suitability of a surface water purchase would need to be completed, with results ensuring that the surface water source would be compatible with the District’s infrastructure and Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-16 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives water supply. Compatibility considerations include pipe corrosion, which could result in aesthetic issues (e.g., brown or red colored water), increased levels of corrosion byproducts (e.g., lead, copper), among other issues. The pilot study could result in identification of additional water quality treatment that would need to be implemented before surface water could be blended with other District water supplies, long-term. The pilot study is currently underway and laboratory data collection and analysis is nearing completion and may identify an initial need for water quality treatment. This phase of the study would be followed by testing of the recommended treatment approach within a sub-area of the District’s service area, with additional sampling and analysis to determine final recommendations for water quality treatment approaches. As noted above, following completion of the pilot study, the District would have to formalize a long-term (50 year) water purchase agreement with the City for the surface water supply portion of Alternative 2 to be implemented. As noted above, the surface water supply portion of Alternative 2 would require the guarantee that water would be available to the District yearly and not just during non-drought conditions. Currently, under the pilot study project, there are a set of conditions and limitations that the surface water may only available at the discretion of the City and considering factors such as but not limited: whether a mandatory curtailment is in place, Loch Lomond Reservoir is spilling or intended to spill, and flow requirements to support aquatic species is being met (City of Santa Cruz and District, 2016). In order to enter into such an agreement, the District would need to coordinate with the City to develop the terms and commitments of such an agreement. As part of that effort, the City would need to consider the fee terms they would require of the District for a guaranteed water supply, their drought shortfall and water supply needs and restrictions, such as their Water Supply Advisory Committee recommendations, which seek to maximize surface water for the City’s own needs, and whether their 1987 and 1993 restrictions (formalized in City resolutions) formalizing the ban of additional connections to North Coast water supply sources would apply to a long-term agreement with the District. 1, 2 Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives. It would meet the overall goal of recharging the local groundwater basin and of supplementing the District’s water supply by 1,500 afy. However, the goal to replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under SGMA would not be met to the same extent as the Project. The Project includes groundwater recharge in areas of the District deemed most at risk from further seawater intrusion, allowing the Project to serve as a seawater barrier, and includes recharge in specific locations, considering geology, groundwater levels and flow directions, etc., that would allow for a targeted, focused, and effective rate of groundwater basin 1 2 Consideration and evaluation of the feasibility of the Water Supply Advisory recommendations is underway, with the feasibility evaluation expected to be complete in late 2020. The City of Santa Cruz’s Resolution No. NS-17,372, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Confirming Policy for Water Availability in the North Coast Area (1983), and Resolution No. NS-21,056, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Santa Cruz Confirming Policy or North Coast Water Distribution Line Service Connections (1993), define and confirm (with updates) the City’s policy since 1963 of not allowing additional connections to the North Coast Water Main serving the North Coast service area. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-17 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives replenishment. Because approximately 300 afy of surface water supply would be incorporated directly into the District potable water distribution system; groundwater recharge and basin recovery would occur at a slower rate than under the Project because direct recharge and replenishment in the areas of greatest concern and at locations most effective for recharge purposes would be limited to 1,200 afy. Further, because the current pilot study would need to be completed, with results ensuring that the surface water source would be compatible with the District’s infrastructure and water supply(potentially with treatment), followed by formation and approval of a 50-year water purchase agreement with the City of Santa Cruz, with terms that guarantee this water to the District; and amendment of the District’s permit with California Department of Drinking Water to allow for service of both groundwater and surface water, the surface water supply portion of Alternative 2 would require a lengthier period of time to develop than the Project. As a result, the goal to replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under SGMA would not be met to the same extent as the Project. Assuming completion of the current pilot study and approval of a new 50-year water purchase agreement, Alternative 2 would allow the District to continue to provide customers with a highquality and safe water supply. Alternative 2 would also provide additional environmental benefits to marine waters, associated with the overall reduction in treated wastewater discharges to Monterey Bay; however, the volume of the reduction would be less than under the Project. Further, ongoing and long-term use of surface water supplies could impact surface water resources; therefore, environmental benefits to surface waters would not occur. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 2 As summarized in Table 7‐2, implementation of Alternative 2 would slightly reduce construction air quality and energy conservation impacts (Impacts 4.3-1, 4.3-3, 4.3-4, and 4.6-1), because some AWPF components would have slightly reduced footprints, requiring less overall energy use and generating less overall air emissions. However, these impacts would be significant under Alternative 2, and would require the same mitigation measures as the project to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts associated with tree removal could be reduced, if the reduced AWPF components allowed for reduction or avoidance of tree removal (Impact 4.4-5). Construction phase biological resources, cultural resources, surface water hydrology and water quality, hazardous materials, and tribal cultural properties impacts would be similar to the Project (Impacts 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.5-1, 4.5-2, 4.5-3, 4.9-3, 4.11-1. And 4.16-1). While the overall size of the AWPF would be slightly reduced; pump stations, pipelines, recharge wells, and overall construction staging at the AWPF site – the key drivers of the above-referenced constructionrelated impacts – would be the same as the Project. The same mitigation measures as identified for the Project would be required to reduce the impacts of Alternative 2 to less-than-significant levels. Similarly, construction noise impacts would be the same as the Project because the type of construction equipment required, the construction hours, and proximity of construction activities to sensitive receptors would be the same as the Project (Impacts 4.13-1, 4.13-2, 4.13-4, and CUNOI). The same mitigation measures as identified for the Project would be required to reduce the Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-18 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives impacts of Alternative 2. However, as with the Project, construction noise exceedance of noise standards and ambient noise levels would remain significant and unavoidable. While the AWPF construction would be slightly reduced, construction traffic impacts are primarily associated with pipeline construction activities, which would be the same under Alternative 2. Thus, traffic impacts would be the same as the Project and would require the same mitigation measures to reduce Impacts 4.15-1, 4.15-3, 4.15-4, and CU-TRA to less than significant levels. While the transportation, use, storage, and disposal of treatment chemicals for the Project is a less than significant impact under the Project, due to containment and use requirements, it is noted that Alternative 2 would result in a change in the requirements for treatment chemicals. The Alternative 2 AWPF capacity and facility would result in a slight reduction in treatment chemical needs. However, it is not yet known whether the surface water supplies would require chemical treatment prior to blending with District supplies, to address corrosivity of the source water. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, the 5-year pilot study is underway to determine the need for such treatments. The outcome of that study, would indicate whether Alternative 2 would result in the transportation, use, storage and disposal of treatment chemicals would be the same, less, or greater than the Project. In all cases, this impact would remain less than significant. Groundwater recharge under the Project allows for long-term increases in groundwater levels and maintains groundwater and surface water interactions. The Project does not result in long-term impacts on surface water bodies, and the resources dependent on those waters. Alternative 2 results in a new long-term surface water use that would result in reduction in overall surface water supplies and stream flow volumes and, particularly during drought conditions, could affect fisheries and other aquatic species, wetland/riparian habitat, and other water dependent natural resources. This impact would not occur under the Project. The City of Santa Cruz has been working toward the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that covers operation and maintenance activities at the North Coast streams and San Lorenzo River diversions, as well as other activities which may result in “take” of threatened and/or endangered species. An HCP is an operational avoidance and minimization and mitigation plan prepared under Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that can also be used to obtain a take permit under and Section 2081 of the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) by nonfederal parties seeking to obtain a permit for incidental take of federally or state-listed threatened and endangered species. The City initiated the HCP process because the streams from which the City diverts water currently support steelhead trout and the San Lorenzo River and Laguna Creek support coho salmon (Santa Cruz, 2016). The current HCP development process supports this consideration of long-term surface water and natural resources impacts associated with implementation of Alternative 2. Further, should the HCP be completed prior to implementation of Alternative 2, if selected, additional biological resources impacts related to consistency with HCPs could occur as a result of long-term use of surface water supplies subject to the HCP. Finally, under Alternative 2, the long-term guaranteed drought and non-drought District use of surface water supplies could affect the current and future water availability of water to other surface water supply users (including City of Santa Cruz, as well as those with direct connections to the North coast). Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-19 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives In summary, the overall intensity of construction impacts would be slightly reduced under Alternative 2, because Alternative 2 would include a 5- to 10-percent reduction in the process building footprint and a reduction in the process and chemical storage tanks. All of the significant impacts of the proposed project would remain significant under the Alternative 2. However, the magnitude of significance would generally be less for the air quality and energy consumption effects and potentially the tree removal effects. All of the impacts would be reduced to a lessthan-significant level with implementation of the same mitigation measures specified in this EIR for the proposed project, with the exception of construction noise effects which would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. However, Alternative 2 would result in impacts to surface water bodies that would provide the long-term District water supply during drought and non-drought conditions, and would also therefore impact aquatic and other biological and natural resources dependent on those surface water bodies. This impact would not occur under the Project. This alternative would not meet the Project objectives to the same extent as the project. Further, while generally feasible, the surface water purchase portion of Alternative 2 is not entirely within the District’s control, as it depends on the successful outcome of the 5-year pilot study and preparation and commitment of a long-term agreement with the City of Santa Cruz. Alternative 3: Seawater/Brackish Desalination Description of Alternative 3 The District would develop a seawater or brackish water desalination project located within the District service area capable of producing an average of 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd) or 1,500 acre-feet per year (afy) of potable water. The project would be used to meet customer demands and reduce groundwater pumping to allow for natural (in-lieu) recharge of the aquifer and prevent seawater intrusion. This water would require a connection to the closest existing distribution pipeline. Seawater could be pumped from the Pacific Ocean to the desalination plant through an intake facility and pipeline; or intake wells could be installed to pump brackish water from an area on the beach to the desalination facility. Brine from the desalination facility would be discharged through a new ocean outfall near the facility. The intake and facility pretreatment would be sized to treat approximately 2.6 mgd of source water to produce 1.3 mgd of potable water. Conceptually, Alternative 3 would provide a year-round supply during all hydrologic year types to blend into the District system. Conceptually, the intake pump station and the desalination facility could be located on a 13.8 acre undeveloped parcel north of Highway 1 and west of State Park Drive, in Aptos. 3 The site currently serves as a plant nursery, and formerly was a Par 3 golf course and a closed-band radio tower site. Other large, relatively undeveloped areas in the District that are within reasonable proximity to the ocean and District water supply distribution pipelines, and with limited sensitive 3 It may be feasible to construct an AWPF at this site; however, the distance between the Santa Cruz WWTF and this site is substantially greater than the Project sites and an alternate AWPF would likely result in greater impacts than the Project. See Section 7.5, Alternatives Considered, but Rejected from Further Analysis. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-20 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives receptors could also be utilized as a desalination treatment site under this Alternative. Microtunneling could be used to convey the dual intake pipelines and brine discharge pipeline from the intake pump station location, beneath the highway and bluffs and out past the surf zone, approximately 1,000 feet from the shoreline or for brackish water intake on the beach. The pipelines could then extend farther out to the intake and brine discharge locations, without additional tunneling. The conceptual process for the desalination plant includes pretreatment using advanced technologies to remove pathogens and suspended solids, a dual-stage reverse-osmosis system to remove salts, and post-treatment to stabilize and disinfect the product water and make it suitable for mixing in the District water system. A treated-water pump station would be constructed and used to pump the treated water to the District distribution system at a nearby connection point. Implementation of Alternative 3 would require numerous additional permits and approvals, including preparation of a watershed sanitary survey in accordance with the California Department of Public Health’s safety regulations, approval by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for construction of structures in coastal areas, and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for brine disposal. In addition, as required by Clean Water Act Section 316(b), the District would be required to submit a study to the California Coastal Commission describing the potential impingement and entrainment impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, because Alternative 3 would involve construction and operation of new facilities in Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), the Sanctuary would need to: 1) authorize a CDP to allow for drilling into submerged lands to install the intake and discharge systems; authorize a NPDES permit to allow for the discharge of brine, and; 3) the issuance of a special use permit for continued presence of pipelines on or under the ocean floor. Accordingly, the project would be subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), compliance with which could require preparation of an environmental impact statement. Further, a State Lands Commission lease and/or permit and California Coastal Commission Coastal Development permit may be required, if construction activities or structures are to be located within their jurisdictional boundaries. While there would be no restrictions on the availability of seawater or brackish water, there remain site-specific uncertainties regarding the permit conditions for brine disposal and for minimizing impacts on aquatic resources. In addition, this alternative would add substantial cost associated with building and operating a new intake structure, pump station, treatment plant, and transmission pipelines, as well as any required mitigation measures. In addition, an extended period of time could be required to complete the engineering design, potential additional CEQA review, NEPA compliance, and permitting for the desalination plant. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Alternative 3 would meet most of the project objectives. It would meet the overall goal of recharging or allowing recovery of the local groundwater basin and supplementing the District’s water supply by 1.500 afy. However, the above-referenced additional environmental analysis and regulatory permitting process required for a desalination project would likely require a lengthier period of time than the Project due to the complexity of permitting such a project. As a result, the goal to replenish the local groundwater basin to prevent further seawater intrusion and develop a Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-21 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives sustainable water supply in a timely manner that meets the District’s supply objectives and the State’s mandate under SGMA would not be met to the same extent as the Project. Furthermore, because desalinated water could be incorporated directly into the District potable water distribution system rather than recharged directly to targeted areas of the groundwater basin with the greatest concern for seawater intrusion effects; groundwater recharge would occur at a slower rate in the targeted zone than under the Project. Alternative 3 is considered a drought-resistant supplemental water source and would increase the diversity of the water District water supply portfolio. Alternative 3 would allow the District to continue providing customers with a high-quality and safe water supply. However, Alternative 3 would not provide additional environmental benefits to marine waters, because it would not reduce treated wastewater discharges to Monterey Bay. Further, Alternative 3 could result in additional impacts to Monterey Bay associated with the intake of seawater and discharge of an additional brine supply. Environmental Impacts of Alternative 3 As summarized in Table 7‐2, implementation of Alternative 3 would decrease the intensity of some of the significant short-term impacts identified for the Project. While Alternative 3 would include a similar treatment facility as the Project, the site requirements under this Alternative include that it would be sufficiently larger and therefore, noise-generating activities could be sited away from nearby sensitive receptors. Thus, the significant and unavoidable noise impacts identified for the Project would likely be reduced to significant-but-mitigable under Alternative 3 (Impacts 4.13-1, 4.13-2, 4.13-4, and CU-NOI). Traffic impacts largely associated with construction of pipelines in public roadways; and in the vicinity of known hazardous materials sites near pipeline routes would be reduced under Alternative 3 (Impacts 4.9-4, 4.15-1, 4.15-3, 4.15-4, and CU-TRA). Other impacts may be reduced compared to the Project, as the overall area of surface disturbance would be reduced compared to the Project, based on the reduction in distribution pipelines and elimination of recharge well sites. Therefore, construction impacts could be reduced or similar to the Project for many topics. However, the tunneling required for the intake and marine discharge pipelines could increase the overall construction effects or result to biological, cultural, or water quality resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the magnitude of comparative impacts of Alternative 3 to the Project is unclear. Alternative 3 would introduce several additional short-term and long-term impacts. These impacts are discussed below: • Operation of the desalination plant could result in the entrainment and/or impingement of marine organisms and marine organisms could be affected by changes in water quality, potentially resulting in adverse effects on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations (potentially including those of the National Marine Fisheries Service), or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. However, the intake pipeline could be sited and designed to minimize this potential impact. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-22 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives • Operation of the desalination plant could result in the degradation of water quality in Monterey Bay as a result of high-salinity discharges into the MBNMS from the outfall structure. • Operation of the desalination plant would substantially increase energy consumption for desalination and pumping, and would be associated with substantial air quality and GHG emissions. • It is uncertain whether the existing buildings at the facility site have been evaluated for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places, and cultural resource surveys would be required to identify potential impacts on historic resources if the buildings would be demolished or altered. • Construction of the desalination plant could encounter hazardous and other materials in the soil, associated with former current and former use of the site as plant nursery and golf course (fertilizers and pesticides), and as a radio station (metals). • If a brackish facility was built and operational then the seawater plume could move farther inland and could impact other water wells, both municipal and privately owned. In summary, while Alternative 3 would avoid or reduce some of the significant impacts of the Project, it would result in additional construction and operational impacts compared to the Project. Marine organisms could become entrained and/or impinged, and degradation of marine water quality could result from discharges of saline water from the desalination plant. Further, operational energy use, air quality emissions, and GHG emissions would be substantially greater than under the Project. 7.4 Comparison of Alternatives The CEQA Guidelines require the identification of an environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project (Section 15126.6[e]). If it is determined that the “no project” alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other project alternatives (Section 15126.6[3]). As described above, the No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) and Reduced Project with Treated Surface Water Purchase (Alternative 2) would both reduce construction effects relative to the proposed project because: (1) there would be no facilities constructed under the No Project Alternative, and (2) Alternative 2 facility construction would be slightly reduced. The significant impacts of the proposed project would remain significant under Alternative 2. Construction phase air emissions and energy consumption, and potential tree removal impacts, would be slightly less than under the Project, and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation measures specified in this EIR for the Project. Construction noise effects would be the same as the Project and would remain significant and unavoidable with mitigation. All other significant construction impacts and the long-term noise impact of the project would remain significant under Alternative 2 and would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation measures specified in the EIR for the Project. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-23 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives However, Alternative 2 results in a new long-term surface water use that would result in reduction in overall surface water supplies and stream flow volumes and, particularly during drought conditions, and could affect fisheries and other aquatic species, wetland/riparian habitat, and other water dependent natural resources as a result. This impact would not occur under the Project. The Local Seawater/Brackish Water Desalination Plant Alternative (Alternative 3) would reduce the operational noise impact and some of the short-term construction impacts of the Project. However, it would also introduce different operational impacts related to entrainment and/or impingement of marine organisms in the intake pipeline, degradation of water quality as a result of more concentrated brine discharges (and associated marine organism effects), and increased energy use and air quality and GHG emissions during operation. Some of the construction impacts would be reduced relative to the proposed project, but tunneling associated with construction of the intake and discharge pipelines could result in greater air quality and GHG emissions, and biological and water quality impacts associated with marine construction. In addition, historic resources could be disturbed if existing buildings were eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The No Project Alternative would not meet project objectives. Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would meet most of the project objectives; however, these alternatives would not achieve the targeted groundwater basin replenishment requirements as quickly as the Project. In addition, Alternative 2 would require a lengthier planning period than the Project, in order to obtain the required long term surface water supply for Alternative 2, due to regulatory and permitting requirements and the need to execute an agreement with the City of Santa Cruz for that supply. Further, there are challenges associated with this implementation of Alternative 3, including, among others, the timing and uncertainties regarding regulatory and permitting conditions for source water intake, brine disposal, and for minimizing impacts on marine resources. Based on the evaluation above, the Project is the environmentally superior alternative among the project alternatives (other than the No Project Alternative). While Alternative 2 would slightly decrease the intensity of construction-related air emissions and energy consumption, and potentially tree removal impacts, relative to those of the Project, it would result in long-term surface water, and could result in fisheries/aquatic resources, and other natural resources impacts as a result that would not result under the Project. Further, Alternative 2 would not meet Project objectives to the same extent as the Project. 7.5 Alternatives Considered, but Rejected from Further Analysis The alternatives to the Project that were considered by the District during project development included alternative sites for an AWPF, rather than the Project’s SC WWTF, Chanticleer, or Headquarters-West Annex site options; development of an advanced purification facility capable of purifying raw wastewater; additional water conservation programs in lieu of a supplemental supply project; and alternative supply, including larger scale surface water purchases, Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-24 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives participation in the DeepWater Desal Project, and new reservoirs. These alternatives to the Project are summarized in Table 7-3 and described further in the subsections that follow. As described in Section 7.2, Approach to Alternatives Selection, consistent with CEQA, the approach to Project alternatives selection for this EIR focused on identifying alternatives that: (1) could meet most of the basic objectives of the project while reducing one or more of its significant impacts, (2) could foster informed decision-making and public participation, and (3) could be feasibly implemented. CEQA Guidelines Section 15364 defines “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states that “the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the potential feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent).” As indicated in Table 7-3, alternative AWPF sites and AWPF for the purification of raw wastewater would meet all project objectives, which are listed in Section 7.2.1, Project Objectives, but were rejected due to issues of feasibility and environmental impacts. Additional conservation programs would meet some Project objectives and reduce environmental effects, but were rejected because they failed to meet key Project objectives of supply diversification, timeliness, drought resistance, and affordability. Large scale surface water purchase would only meet some Project objectives, but was rejected because its feasibility remains uncertain, similar range of significant impacts, and failure to meet key objectives of timeliness, affordability, reliability, and drought resistance. Participation in the DeepWater Desal Project would meet some Project objectives, but was rejected due to issues of timeliness, affordability, and environmental impacts. A large scale surface water purchase or participation in the DeepWater Desal Project would require that CEQA and NEPA lead agencies and project proponent other than the District complete CEQA and NEPA and approve a project action. A new reservoir project would meet some Project objectives, but was rejected due to feasibility, similar or greater environmental impacts, and failure to meet key Project objectives of timeliness and affordability. While these alternatives are eliminated from further evaluation as a Project alternative under CEQA for the reasons indicated above, it is acknowledged that additional conservation programs, water purchases, and participation in the DeepWater Desalination Project continue to be evaluated as separate potential projects under the Community Water Plan (see Section 2.2.2, Community Water Plan) and could move forward as projects, independent of the Pure Water Soquel project. The District received a range of suggestions from the public during the EIR scoping period. These included alternative AWPF sites, such as rural, non-residential, and less-populated areas, among others; alternative water supplies, such as atmospheric extraction, excess water from the City of Santa Cruz, Nearly Lagoon, Loch Lomond Reservoir, grey water, rain water, and stormwater, among others; and alternative water conveyance facilities, such as rail car transport of source water from SC WWTF to treatment site location. These suggestions were considered in the development of the alternatives identified above. Accordingly, some of the suggestions received Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-25 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Potential Alternative Identified Description Ability to Meet Project Objectives and Constraints on Implementation Develop Project at other site locations. Develop Project with AWPF at alternative sites: • Bay Avenue/Highway 1 • Meets All Project Objectives: − − • Soquel Pump Station • DA Porath Pump Station − • State Park Drive • District’s Maplethorpe Tank Site • Mattison Lane/Soquel Avenue • 1938 Soquel Drive • Property near Sunnyside Produce, Soquel • South Rodeo Gulch/ Research Park Drive − Sustainable supply that can be developed in a timely manner Affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant source Allows District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers Provides additional environmental benefits • Reasons for Rejection: − − − Increased construction and operations impacts Inability to secure site control Insufficient space to accommodate facility • Parcel next to carwash on Soquel Drive/ West of 41st Avenue near Lumber Store • Skate Park, Dog park, and bike pump track area near McGregor Pump Station • Vacant parcels near Park Avenue/ Frontage Highway 1 • Innerlight Church • Undeveloped Parcel on Soquel Drive (near Chen Way and Innerlight church) • Mt. Calgary Church • Community Center Parking Lot in Capitola Village • Twin Lakes Church Oak Field • Capitola Corporation Yard Develop Project with ability to purify raw wastewater. Develop an AWPF with membrane bioreactor (MBR) technology, capable of advanced purification of raw wastewater • Meets All Project Objectives: − − − − Sustainable supply that can be developed in a timely manner Affordable, reliable, and drought-resistant source Allows District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers Provides long-term environmental benefits, similar to Project • Reasons for Rejection: − Water Rationing Program Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Implement multifaceted, advanced water conservation program capable of reducing demand commensurate to the District’s replenishment target 7-26 Would not reduce or avoid a significant impact of the Project; would increase some construction and operations impacts at purification facility location • Meets Some Project Objectives: − − − − Allows District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers Provides additional environmental benefits Cannot be implemented in a timely manner Does not contribute to supply diversification ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives TABLE 7-3 (CONTINUED) ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED FROM FURTHER CONSIDERATION Potential Alternative Identified Ability to Meet Project Objectives and Constraints on Implementation Description • Reasons for Rejection: Water Rationing Program (cont.) − − Large Scale Surface Water Purchase as a standalone alternative supply source Enter into agreement with the City of Santa Cruz for purchase of excess surface water to meet the full water supply need proposed under the Project. Infeasible - achieving the water use/conservation reduction commensurate with the target level of supplemental water supply is infeasible, given historic reductions and current low use; and uncertainty that it can be sustainable to ration for an extensive time period Does not meet key project objectives related to supply diversification and timely implementation • Meets Some Project Objectives: − − − − − − Would help with Basin replenishment Contributes to water supply diversification May allow District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers (pending results of Pilot Study) Does not provide for timely, affordable water Would not be reliable during drought periods Does not provide additional environmental benefits to surface waters • Reasons for Rejection: − − − DeepWater Desal participation as an alternative supply source Enter into agreement with DeepWater Desal for purchase of desalinated water to meet the water supply proposed under the Project. May not substantially lessen environmental impacts Feasibility remains uncertain, as availability (i.e., quantity and legal) and certainty of water supply would be managed by City of Santa Cruz. Does not meet key project objectives of timeliness, affordability, and drought resistance • Meets Some Project Objectives: − − − − − Would help with Basin replenishment Contributes to water supply diversification Allows District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers May not be affordable or developed in a timely manner Does not provide additional environmental benefits to marine waters • Reasons for Rejection: − − New dam and reservoir as an alternative water supply source, with percolation ponds as an alternative to recharge wells Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR Develop a new dam in the Santa Cruz Mountains to capture rainwater runoff to meet the water supply proposed under the Project, and development of percolation ponds to recharge the groundwater basin 7-27 May avoid some impacts of the Project, would result in additional environmental impacts, such as marine biology, terrestrial biology, cultural resources, and energy efficiency May not be affordable or developed in a timely manner • Meets Some Project Objectives: − − Contributes to water supply diversification May contribute to basin replenishment and allow District to continue providing highquality and safe water to customers ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Potential Alternative Identified Ability to Meet Project Objectives and Constraints on Implementation Description − New dam and reservoir as an alternative water supply source, with percolation ponds as an alternative to recharge wells (cont.) − − Would not be affordable or capable of being developed in a timely manner Would not provide environmental benefits to surface waters Increased construction/operations impacts • Reasons for Rejection: − − − Feasibility remains uncertain Would not be affordable or capable of being developed in a timely manner Could avoid or lessen impacts of the Project, but could result in additional terrestrial and aquatic biological resources, cultural resources, air quality emissions, and other effects during the scoping period are not addressed in detail individually, because they are substantially similar to another alternative that is addressed in detail (e.g., water transfers/purchase). Other alternatives are not addressed in detail because, it is clear from because the initial assessment indicated that they would not reduce environmental effects of the Project, would not be feasible, and/or would not meet basic key Project objectives (e.g., atmospheric extraction). 7.5.1 Develop Project at Other Site Locations Under this alternative, the District would construct an AWPF at a site other than those considered as part of the Project (Santa Cruz WWTF; Chanticleer, or Headquarters-West Annex). See Table 7-3 for a list of alternative sites considered. Under this alternative, secondary-treated SC WWTF effluent (source water) would be conveyed via a new pipeline to an AWPF at one of the alternative sites for purification. Brine concentrate would be routed via dedicate brine concentrate pipeline from the AWPF back to the SC WWTF for disposal via existing ocean outfall. The pipelines between the SC WWTF and AWPF would follow the same alignment. Purified water would be conveyed via dedicated purified water pipeline from the AWPF to new recharge wells at Monterey Avenue or the Cabrillo College Drive area. Impact Reduction An AWPF at the Soquel Drive/41st Avenue intersection parcel would have impacts similar to those of the Project. Compared to the Project, an AWPF at the Soquel Pump Station or west of State Park Drive could reduce noise impacts associated with AWPF operations. An AWPF at the DA Porath site would increase potential biological resources due to potential for disturbance to wintering monarch butterfly population, and additional impacts associated with a longer pipeline route (Carollo 2017). An AWPF at the site at Mattison Lane/Soquel Avenue and the vacant parcels near Park Avenue/ Frontage Highway 1 would increase the potential for impacts to biological resources due to potential disturbance to riparian habitat. Greater archaeological resource impacts are possible at the property near Sunnyside Produce. Relocation of existing infrastructure or land uses would be necessary at the property near Sunnyside Produce, Skate Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-28 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Park near McGregor Pump Station, Twin Lakes Church Oak Field (note that this site/vicinity is a proposed recharge well site under the Project), and the Capitola Corporation Yard. However, with any of the above AWPF site alternatives, the significant noise effects of pipeline and recharge well construction identified for the Project would remain. The State Park Drive site, the Innerlight church, the Mt. Calgary church, and the undeveloped parcel on Soquel Drive (near Chen Way and Innerlight church), and the Community Center parking lot in Capitola Village would require substantially greater pipeline construction to connect the site with the Santa Cruz WWTF source supply and proposed recharge well locations, resulting in substantially greater air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, traffic and circulation, and tribal cultural properties impacts associated with pipeline construction. Consequently, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen significant Project effects and, therefore, would not meet the requirements of the CEQA alternatives analysis. Feasibility Locating an AWPF at the Soquel Drive/41st Avenue intersection parcel would not be feasible due to the District’s inability to secure site control; the parcel is currently planned for a Nissan auto dealership. Locating an AWPF at the Soquel Pump Station, the parcel next to the carwash on Soquel Drive/ West of 41st Avenue, the Skate Park near the McGregor Pump Station, the vacant parcels near Park Avenue/ Frontage Highway 1, and the Twin Lakes Church Oak Field would not be feasible due to lack of available space. Land adjacent to the Soquel Pump Station, the vacant parcels near Park Avenue, and the Capitola Corporation Yard is either fully developed or sensitive riparian habitat. Locating an AWPF at the property near Sunnyside Produce would be feasible, but would require the relocation of existing land uses. Locating an AWPF at 1938 Soquel Drive, Community Center Parking Lot in Capitola Village, the DA Porath Pump Station, the Innerlight church, the Maplethorpe tank site, Mattison Lane/Soquel Avenue, the undeveloped parcel on Soquel Drive near Chen Way and the Innerlight church, the parcel near South Rodeo Gulch/ Research Park Drive, Mt. Calgary church, and the property west of State Park Drive would be feasible, but could require an extended construction period due the requirement for a longer pipeline. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Locating an AWPF at all of the alternative sites would meet all of the Project’s objectives. 7.5.2 Develop Project with Other Treatment Technology Under this alternative, the District would construct an AWPF with membrane bioreactor technology (MBR-AWPF), capable of advanced purification of raw municipal wastewater, at the Headquarters-West Annex site. The District would also construct a new source water pump station and main to convey raw wastewater from the existing force main at the Soquel Pump Station to the Headquarters-West Annex Site for MBR plus advanced purification. Brine concentrate would be conveyed via new dedicated pipeline to the SCCSD collection system, into which it would discharge brine concentrate for treatment at the SC WWTF. Purified water would be conveyed via new dedicated purified water pipeline from the AWPF to new recharge wells at Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-29 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Monterey Avenue, Willowbrook Lane, or the Cabrillo College Drive area. As described below, this option was rejected due to increased environmental effects associated with construction and operation. Impact Reduction As a MBR-AWPF would have a larger footprint than an AWPF alone, the extent and duration of construction impacts would be expected to increase relative to the Project. Similarly, as the MBRAWPF would be performing an additional stage of treatment – primary treatment of raw wastewater – operational impacts at the Headquarters-West Annex site would also be equal to or greater than for the Project. This alternative would avoid impacts associated with construction of source water, brine concentrate, and/or purified water conveyance pipelines to and from the SC WWTF. However, it would still result in the types of significant pipeline and recharge well construction impacts identified for the Project. In addition, treatment of raw wastewater as an MBR-AWPF would require greater energy use and emissions than the Project; and could be associated with operational odor and noise impacts, greater use of treatment chemicals, and additional operational delivery and operations vehicle trips as compared to the project. Thus, the alternative would result in greater operational impacts than the project. For these reasons, this alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen significant Project effects and, therefore, would not meet the requirements of the CEQA alternatives analysis. It is noted that operational impacts associated with MBR-AWPF were raised during CEQA scoping for the Project; resulting in a request by the District Board of Directors to discontinue planning efforts associated with potential use of raw wastewater from the Santa Cruz County Sanitation District collection system as source water for Project. Feasibility Establishment of an MBR-AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex site would be technically feasible. Ability to Meet Project Objectives Locating an MBR-AWPF at the Headquarters-West Annex site would meet all Project objectives. 7.5.3 Implement Water Rationing Program Under this alternative, the District would not undertake an advanced water purification project for groundwater recharge. Rather, it would implement a program of additional conservation measures and use restrictions. These measures and restrictions would be designed to achieve, through water conservation, a reduction in demand sufficient in size to offset the portion of the District’s groundwater pumping that is contributing to Basin overdraft conditions (approx. 1,500 afy). As described below, this alternative was rejected due to the infeasibility of relying upon conservation alone, given past reductions and low levels of current consumption, and because it would not meet key Project objectives related to supply diversification and timely implementation. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-30 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Impact Reduction As this alternative would not involve construction of an advanced water purification project for groundwater recharge, it would have none of the impacts identified for the Project. Feasibility The District presently has a multifaceted water conservation program whose implementation has resulted in substantial water use reductions over the past several years. The District’s ongoing water conservation initiatives include: measures to reduce water use among District operations (e.g., filtering and recirculating water used for main flushing, reducing vehicle washing, eliminating irrigation at District properties), rebates for water-saving home and business improvements, retrofit requirements for properties prior to resale, and a community Water-Wise Grant program, among others (District, 2017). Through these efforts, over the past decade overall water production, which includes water use and system water loss, in the District’s service area has declined by more than 33 percent, from 5,009 afy in 2005 to 3,324 afy in 2015 (District, 2017). In 2016, per capita water use in the District’s service area was approximately 50 gallons per day, substantially lower than the California average per capita use of 85 gallons per day (LAO, 2017). Nevertheless, to achieve the Project’s Basin replenishment goal, an additional 30 to 40 percent reduction in water use would be required for the next 20 years (Carollo, 2017). To reliably maintain very low consumption, the District would most likely solidify the conservation efforts into a water rationing program. Given the extent of reductions to date, and the already-low levels of consumption, this alternative is considered infeasible. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would meet District objectives by continuing to provide high-quality and safe water to customers, and providing additional environmental benefits to surface and marine waters. However, given the extensive conservation efforts already underway, and the Districtwide participation that would be required to achieve the target reduction, this alternative would take a considerable amount of time to implement. As a result, this alternative would not meet the Project objective of timely implementation. In addition, since it would not involve a new supply source, it would not meet the Project objective of water supply diversification and resiliency. 7.5.4 Participation in City of Santa Cruz’s In-Lieu and/or Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project(s) as an Alternative Supply Source Under this alternative, the District would not undertake an advanced water purification project for groundwater recharge. Instead, the District would enter into an agreement with the City of Santa Cruz to participate in its In-Lieu and/or Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project(s) that is the first priority project they are evaluating under the recommendations of the City’s Water Supply Advisory Committee. The concept includes the City taking treated winter surface water from the City’s surface water sources (North Coast Water Supplies and the San Lorenzo River) and providing it to neighboring water agencies (e.g., Soquel Creek Water District and Scotts Valley Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-31 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Water District) for in-lieu storage to be called upon for a transfer of water back during drought conditions. The City is also evaluating using aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) wells whereby wells would be installed in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin and/or in the Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin that could inject water into the ground and then extract water out at a future time when drought conditions arise. The City has expressed that conceptually approximately 1,500 afy could be available to the District via the in-lieu scenario and with the ASR wells; however, additional evaluation is needed and is being performed. While this could meet the District’s water needs, it is unknown how much water Santa Cruz would need the District to transfer back during drought years under the in-lieu scenario and if the water would be available from the basin. Participation in a project that includes in lieu and/or ASR would likely require the modification/acquisition of water rights from the San Lorenzo River which could be a lengthy process. The City has been negotiating its Habitat Conservation Plan for approximately 10 years and also there are other infrastructure improvements (such as upgrades to GHWTP), expansion of transmission capacity (i.e., with larger pipelines ) to the District’s distribution system, as well as Scotts Valley Water District (SVWD), construction of the ASR wells within the Santa Cruz MidCounty Groundwater Basin and Santa Margarita Groundwater Basin, and additional infrastructure necessary to transfer water stored in aquifers back to Santa Cruz when needed during drought years (WSAC, 2015). The City is currently undergoing technical evaluation that includes modeling and implementing a pilot ASR well. In addition to this project, the City is also evaluating developing a recycled water project or desalination project. The City expects to complete these technical evaluations at the end of 2020. Following completion of the evaluations, staff and consultants would propose to the City Council a recommendation on which of their three options they would pursue to initiate environmental review, design, and formal agreements with potential project partners. As described below, this alternative was rejected by the District because it would not substantially reduce significant Project impacts, and would not meet project objectives related to timeliness, affordability, or reliability during drought periods. Thus, this alternative was eliminated from further consideration as a CEQA alternative. Impact Reduction This alternative would avoid the impacts associated with construction and operation of an AWPF, as well as those from conveyance pipelines to and from the SC WWTF. However, installation of the infrastructure upgrades required to achieve the District’s recharge goals (i.e., 1,500 afy), would be expected to result in a similar range of environmental impacts, including significant impacts associated with infrastructure upgrades and recharge well construction. As a result, this alternative would not materially alter impacts of the Project and, therefore, would not meet the requirements of the CEQA alternatives analysis. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-32 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Feasibility The City is currently undertaking modeling (supply, groundwater, hydraulic) and identifying infrastructure requirements for in-lieu as well as ASR wells that would include partners to the east (District) and/or to its north (Scotts Valley Water District and/or San Lorenzo Valley Water District). The District and City are conducting a water quality blending study to evaluate the feasibility and suitability of mixing the City’s surface water within the District’s traditional groundwater-only conveyance system. As the chemical characteristics of the City’s surface water and District’s groundwater are different, the District is undertaking various studies and tests to protect against unanticipated consequences of switching or blending of surface and groundwater sources. The City is also identifying and quantifying the number of ASR wells that may be required to store enough excess surface water that could be feasibly extracted during drought conditions. The groundwater basin characteristics, especially within the confined units of the Purisima Aquifer, may not have the capacity to store enough water for the City’s needs as well as the needs of the District. It is unknown at this time how long a water rights amendment or new water rights would take for the District to legally get water that was drawn from the San Lorenzo River. Given the uncertainty and timing, among other issues for such an agreement to participate in the City’s project; this alternative is not a potentially feasible alternative to the proposed Project. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would meet some of the Project objectives. It would help with Basin replenishment in non-drought years, contribute to water supply diversification, and potentially allow the District to continue providing high-quality safe water (pending results of the Pilot Study). However, given the time required to address the above-noted feasibility, infrastructure, cost and water rights issues, this alternative would not meet the objective of timely implementation. Further, as transfers may be limited to the winter months, during years in which the City has excess supply, the alternative would not meet the objective of providing a reliable water supply, especially if the City would be taking large volumes of water back to meet their drought shortfall needs. Finally, this alternative of providing the District with surface water could have additional impacts on surface streams, with effects on both aquatic habitats and wildlife. 7.5.5 Participation in DeepWater Desal Project as an Alternative Supply Source Under this alternative, the District would not undertake an advanced water purification project for groundwater recharge. Instead, the District would enter into a purchase agreement with DeepWater Desal, LLC (DWD) for the purchase of desalinated water from its proposed desalination facility in Moss Landing. Note that this concept differs from Alternative 3, Local Desalination/Brackish Water Desalination Plant in that Alternative 3 would include a desalination project owned and operated by the District, while this concept considers reliance on a project owned and operated by another party as the sole supplemental water supply source. The District would use the desalinated water for demand reduction. This alternative would require the District to construct a water conveyance pipeline extending from DeepWater Desal plant in Moss Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-33 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives Landing to the District’s service area (e.g., La Selva Beach/Canon Del Sol). It is estimated that a new conveyance pipeline would extend between 11 and 15 miles in length. Initial cost estimates indicate that the unit cost of water under this alternative would be higher than the proposed Project (Carollo, 2017). As described below, this alternative was rejected because it would not meet Project objectives of providing a timely or affordable alternative supply. Impact Reduction This alternative would avoid the impacts associated with construction and operation of an AWPF and recharge wells. However, connecting the DWD desalination plant to the District’s existing water distribution system would require the construction of a new water conveyance pipeline over a distance similar to that for the Project. It is assumed that a distribution system between Moss Landing and the District’s service area could require construction in the vicinity of fewer sensitive receptors than the proposed project, given the nature of land uses in this area. However, the potential for biological and cultural resources impacts would be greater, given that the desalinated water pipeline would be required to traverse a mostly rural and undeveloped areas with extensive wetlands and surface waters; whereas the Project’s pipelines would traverse mostly urban areas. Feasibility In May 2015, the District entered into a Memorandum of Interest with DWD to express the District's interest in purchasing 1,500 afy of desalinated water. The MOI is non-binding and does not obligate the District to make a financial commitment at this time; nor does it obligate DWD to provide water supply to the District. The environmental review process for the DWD project has begun, but the completion date remains unknown and further investigation on the proposed intake meeting the Ocean Plan Amendments requirements is underway. If the DWD project moves forward, the District would have the opportunity to participate. Construction of the conveyance pipeline between the DWD project and the District’s service area is feasible. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would meet some of the Project objectives. It would help with Basin replenishment, contribute to water supply diversification, and allow the District to continue providing high-quality safe water. However, given the uncertain timeframe and estimated unit cost, this alternative would not meet the Project objectives of providing a timely or affordable alternative supply. 7.5.6 Develop a New Dam and Reservoir Under this alternative, the District would construct a new dam and reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains to capture rain and surface water runoff to meet the District’s water supply needs. The reservoir water would be conveyed via a new pipeline to a new water treatment plant and new percolation ponds for groundwater recharge. This alternative would require the District to repurpose District-owned lands or locate and obtain control of a parcel or parcels of land in the Santa Cruz Mountains of sufficient size and topographic configuration to accommodate a dam Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-34 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives and reservoir. Relatedly, the District would need to obtain water rights to streams affected by the dam. This alternative would also require the District to repurpose District-owned lands or locate and obtain control over a parcel or parcels of sufficient size and geologic composition, within the Soquel Basin, to accommodate percolation ponds capable of recharging the groundwater basin at rates comparable to that of the Project’s recharge wells. As described below, this alternative was rejected because it would not substantially reduce significant Project impacts, and would not meet Project objectives of providing a timely or affordable alternative supply. Impact Reduction This alternative would avoid the impacts associated with construction and operation of an AWPF. However, given the land area footprint of this alternative, the construction and operation of a dam, reservoir, conveyance pipelines, and percolation ponds would be expected to result in substantial environmental impacts, including especially to biological resources due to habitat displacement. Feasibility The feasibility of this alternative remains uncertain. While the physical elements of the alternative could be feasibly constructed, a number of questions remain regarding the availability of land of sufficient size, topography, and geologic composition to accommodate such a project. The District owns some undeveloped and/or underutilized land, including a 125-acre parcel in the Glenwood area. However, their existing landholdings are not large enough to accommodate a surface water reservoir and associated facilities. Given the land area that would be required, and the high cost of real estate in the Santa Cruz area, this alternative would likely be prohibitively expensive. Further, the feasibility of obtaining water rights for such a project is uncertain. Ability to Meet Project Objectives This alternative would meet some of the Project objectives. It would help with Basin replenishment, contribute to water supply diversification, and potentially allow the District to continue providing high-quality safe water. However, given the time required to address the above-noted site feasibility issues, along with the anticipated high cost, this alternative would not meet the objectives of timeliness or affordability. Finally, as the alternative would require drawing water from surface streams, which could have adverse effects on alternative habitats and wildlife, it would not meet the objective of providing additional environmental benefits to surface waters. _________________________ 7.6 References Carollo Engineers, Inc. (Carollo) 2017. Regional Recycled Water Feasibility Study. Final Draft. Prepared for Soquel Creek Water District by Carollo Engineers. November 2017. City of Santa Cruz, 2016. City of Santa Cruz 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. August 2016. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-35 ESA / 160164 June 2018 7. Alternatives City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2016. Cooperative Water Transfer Pilot Project for Groundwater Recharge and Water Resource Management between the City of Santa Cruz and Soquel Creek Water District. July 2016. Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), 2017. Residential Water Use Trends and Implications for Conservation Policy. Available at http://www.lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611. Accessed on April 13, 2018. Soquel Creek Water District (District), 2017. Soquel Creek Water District Production 2005-2017. Water Supply Advisory Committee (WSAC), 2015. Final Report on Agreements and Recommendations. City of Santa Cruz Water Supply Advisory Committee. October, 2015. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 7-36 ESA / 160164 June 2018 CHAPTER 8 Report Preparers and Contributors 8.1 Lead Agency Soquel Creek Water District Taj Dufour, P.E., Engineering Manager/Chief Engineer Ron Duncan, General Manager Eileen Eisner Streller, Assistant Engineer Gabriella Langer, Engineering Technician Melanie Mow Schumacher, P.E., Special Projects – Communications Manager 8.2 EIR Consultant Environmental Science Associates (ESA) (Lead Consultant) Stan Armstrong, Noise and Vibration Analyst Michael Burns, Geology, Hazards, Minerals, and Paleontological Resources Analyst Elijah Davidian, Deputy Project Manager Matthew Fagundes, Air Quality, Energy and Greenhouse Gas Analyst Ari Frink, Project Associate, Agriculture, Land Use and Public Services Analyst Jack Hutchison, Transportation and Circulation Analyst Jessie O’Dell, Population and Housing Analyst Heidi Koenig, Cultural Analyst Alisa Moore, Project Manager Brian Schuster, Air Quality Health Risk Analyst Tessa Verhoef, Project Associate, Utilities and Energy Analyst Erika Walther, Biological Resources Analyst Eric Zigas, Project Director Sutro Science (Sub Consultant) Pete Hudson, Principal, Groundwater Analyst Justin Taplin, Principal, Surface Water Analyst Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 8-1 ESA / 160164 June 2018 8. Report Preparers and Contributors 8.3 EIR Contributors Best Best & Krieger Michelle Ouellette, Partner Brown and Caldwell Erin D. Mackey, Ph.D., P.E. Rachel Philipson, P.E. Alex Waite, Engineer I Sunny Wang, P.E., Technical Advisor Hydrometrics Water Resources Inc. Cameron Tana, P.E. Pure Water Soquel Draft EIR 8-2 ESA / 160164 June 2018