Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Santa ...

Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Report

for the

Santa Margarita Drought Reliability Project

September 2011 State Clearinghouse Number 2010071016

Contact: Prepared by: Mark Hutchinson County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Programs Manager Department of Public Works Department of Public Works County Government Center Room 207 San Luis Obispo CA 93408

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 2010071016

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the

Santa Margarita Drought Reliability Project September 2011 This document is the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the proposed Santa Margarita Drought Reliability Project. The Project consists of a physical connection to the State Water Pipeline at Santa Margarita, the establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to County Service Area 23, and the implementation of a Program to exchange water between County Service Area 23 and other State Water participants. The project would serve the community of Santa Margarita in San Luis Obispo County, California. Copies of this Final SEIR and all documents referenced in this SEIR are available for review from the County Department of Public Works at the County Government Center in San Luis Obispo, 1050 Monterey Street, Room 207. Copies of the Final SEIR are also available for review at the following locations: Santa Margarita Library, 9630 Murphy Avenue; San Luis Obispo Library, 995 Palm Street; and at www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW. HOW TO GET MORE INFORMATION: For more information about this project or this Final SEIR contact Mark Hutchinson, Environmental Programs Manager, or Jill Ogren, Project Manager, at the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works at the address below. Contacts: Mark Hutchinson Jill Ogren Environmental Programs Manager Project Manager Department of Public Works Department of Public Works County Government Center Room 207 County Government Center Room 207 San Luis Obispo CA 93408 San Luis Obispo CA 93408 (805) 781-5252 (805) 781-5263

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... ES-1

ES.1 Introduction................................................................................................ ES-1 ES.2 Proposed Project....................................................................................... ES-2 ES.3 Description of Project Alternatives ............................................................ ES-3 ES.4 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... ES-5 ES.5 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives .................................... ES-5 ES.6 Significant Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project ....................... ES-6 ES.7 Significant Impacts Associated with Alternatives ...................................... ES-9 ES.8 Mitigation Measures ................................................................................ ES-12 ES.9 Areas of Controversy............................................................................... ES-12 ES.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...................................................... ES-12 ES.11 Growth Inducement ................................................................................. ES-13 Impacts Summary Table ......................................................................... ES-14

1.0 Introduction.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Regulatory background ................................................................................ 1-2 1.3 Use of a Supplemental EIR.......................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Scoping Process .......................................................................................... 1-4 1.5 Issue Areas to be Examined ........................................................................ 1-5 1.6 Use of this Document ................................................................................... 1-7 1.7 Relationship to Other Documents ................................................................ 1-7 2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Project ......................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Community Water Demand.......................................................................... 2-5 2.4 Project Location............................................................................................ 2-7 2.5 Project Partners............................................................................................ 2-7 2.6 State Water Project Background Information............................................... 2-8 2.7 Reliability of the State Water Project.......................................................... 2-11 2.8 Discretionary Actions Required ................................................................. 2-13 2.9 Evolving Water Reliability Strategies ......................................................... 2-14 3.0 Alternatives.............................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Alternatives Selection Background Information ........................................... 3-1 3.1.1 Relationship to the Project Purpose and Need ............................... 3-1 3.1.2 CEQA Alternatives Analysis Requirements .................................... 3-1 3.1.3 Alternatives Considered But Rejected ............................................ 3-3 3.2 No Project Alternative................................................................................... 3-5 3.3 Water Conservation Alternative ................................................................... 3-6 3.4 Nacimiento Water Project Alternatives......................................................... 3-7 3.5 Groundwater Alternatives........................................................................... 3-10 4.0 Cumulative Projects Description........................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Cumulative Development Projects ............................................................... 4-1 Cumulative Projects List............................................................................... 4-3

i CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Table of Contents

5.0 Analysis of Environmental Issues...................................................................... 5.0-1 5.1 Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................. 5.1-1 5.1.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.1-3 5.1.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.1-10 5.1.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.1-13 5.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.1-13 5.1.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.1-13 5.1.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.1-14 5.1.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.1-15 5.1.4.4 Groundwater................................................................. .5.1-16 5.1.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.1-17 5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.1-18 5.2 Geology, Seismicity and Soils ............................................................... 5.2-1 5.2.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.2-1 5.2.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.2-3 5.2.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... 5.2-3 5.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 5.2-4 5.2.4.1 Proposed Project............................................................. 5.2-4 5.2.4.2 Water Conservation ........................................................ 5.2-7 5.2.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................... 5.2-7 5.2.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................... 5.2-8 5.2.4.5 No Project........................................................................ 5.2-8 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 5.2-8 5.3 Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation .................................................. 5.3-1 5.3.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.3-1 5.3.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.3-1 5.3.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... 5.3-3 5.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 5.3-3 5.3.4.1 Proposed Project............................................................. 5.3-3 5.3.4.2 Water Conservation ........................................................ 5.3-5 5.3.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................... 5.3-5 5.3.4.3 Groundwater.................................................................... 5.3-6 5.3.4.5 No Project........................................................................ 5.3-6 5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 5.3-6 5.4 Air Quality ................................................................................................ 5.4-1 5.4.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.4-1 5.4.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.4-6 5.4.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.4-12 5.44 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.4-17 5.4.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.4-17 5.4.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.4-23 5.4.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.4-23 5.4.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................. 5.4-24 5.4.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.4-24 5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.4-24

ii CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Table of Contents

5.5 Noise......................................................................................................... 5.5-1 5.5.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.5-1 5.5.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.5-4 5.5.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... 5.5-5 5.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................................ 5.5-6 5.5.4.1 Proposed Project............................................................. 5.5-6 5.5.4.2 Water Conservation ........................................................ 5.5-7 5.5.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................... 5.5-7 5.5.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................... 5.5-8 5.5.4.5 No Project........................................................................ 5.5-8 5.5.5 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................... 5.5-8 5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials......................................................... 5.6-1 5.6.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.6-1 5.6.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.6-5 5.6.3 Significance Criteria ..................................................................... 5.6-9 5.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.6-10 5.6.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.6-10 5.6.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.6-12 5.6.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.6-12 5.6.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................. 5.6-13 5.6.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.6-15 5.6.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.6-15 5.7 Biological Resources.............................................................................. 5.7-1 5.7.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.7-2 5.7.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.7-10 5.7.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.7-13 5.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.7-14 5.7.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.7-14 5.7.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.7-16 5.7.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.7-17 5.7.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................. 5.7-18 5.7.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.7-19 5.7.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.7-19 5.8 Cultural and Paleontological Resources .............................................. 5.8-1 5.8.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.8-1 5.8.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.8-5 5.8.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.8-11 5.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.8-14 5.8.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.8-14 5.8.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.8-15 5.8.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.8-15 5.8.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................. 5.8-17 5.8.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.8-18 5.8.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.8-18

iii CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Table of Contents

5.9 Land Use .................................................................................................. 5.9-1 5.9.1 Environmental Setting .................................................................. 5.9-1 5.9.2 Regulatory Setting........................................................................ 5.9-1 5.9.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.9-15 5.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.9-16 5.9.4.1 Proposed Project........................................................... 5.9-16 5.9.4.2 Water Conservation ...................................................... 5.9-16 5.9.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project ............................................. 5.9-16 5.9.4.4 Groundwater.................................................................. 5.9-17 5.9.4.5 No Project...................................................................... 5.9-18 5.9.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.9-19 5.10 Utilities and Public Services ................................................................ 5.10-1 5.10.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 5.10-1 5.10.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.10-4 5.10.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.10-4 5.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.10-5 5.10.4.1 Proposed Project ....................................................... 5.10-5 5.10.4.2 Water Conservation ................................................... 5.10-7 5.10.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project .......................................... 5.10-7 5.10.4.4 Groundwater .............................................................. 5.10-8 5.10.4.5 No Project .................................................................. 5.10-9 5.10.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.10-9 5.11 Transportation and Circulation............................................................ 5.11-1 5.11.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 5.11-1 5.11.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.11-3 5.11.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.11-3 5.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.11-4 5.11.4.1 Proposed Project ....................................................... 5.11-4 5.11.4.2 Water Conservation ................................................... 5.11-5 5.11.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project .......................................... 5.11-5 5.11.4.4 Groundwater .............................................................. 5.11-6 5.11.4.5 No Project .................................................................. 5.11-6 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.11-6 5.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources........................................................ 5.12-1 5.12.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 5.12-1 5.12.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.12-4 5.12.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.12-5 5.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.12-5 5.12.4.1 Proposed Project ....................................................... 5.12-5 5.12.4.2 Water Conservation ................................................... 5.12-6 5.12.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project .......................................... 5.12-6 5.12.4.4 Groundwater .............................................................. 5.12-7 5.12.4.5 No Project .................................................................. 5.12-8 5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.12-8

iv CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Table of Contents

5.13 Agricultural Resources......................................................................... 5.13-1 5.13.1 Environmental Setting ................................................................ 5.13-1 5.13.2 Regulatory Setting...................................................................... 5.13-4 5.13.3 Significance Criteria ................................................................... 5.13-5 5.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures .............................................. 5.13-5 5.13.4.1 Proposed Project ....................................................... 5.13-5 5.13.4.2 Water Conservation ................................................... 5.13-6 5.13.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project .......................................... 5.13-6 5.13.4.4 Groundwater .............................................................. 5.13-8 5.13.4.5 No Project .................................................................. 5.13-9 5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts.................................................................... 5.13-9 6.0 Environmentally Superior Alternative................................................................... 6-1 Comparison of Build Alternatives by Issue Area Table................................ 6-1 7.0 Growth Inducement................................................................................................. 7-1 7.1 Background .................................................................................................. 7-1 7.2 CEQA Requirements.................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Conclusions.................................................................................................. 7-3 8.0 Summary of Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Plan.................... 8-1 8.1 Mitigation Measures ..................................................................................... 8-1 Mitigation Measure and Alternatives Table .................................................. 8-1 8.2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan............................................................................ 8-6 9.0 References and Preparers...................................................................................... 9-1 9.1 References ................................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.1 Bibliography..................................................................................... 9-1 9.1.2 Agencies and Individuals Contacted ............................................... 9-3 9.2 List of Preparers ........................................................................................... 9-3 10.0 Comments and Responses to Comments .......................................................... 10-1

APPENDICES All appendices are contained on the included Computer Disk. Hard copies of the appendices may be reviewed at:

San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works County Government Center Room 207 San Luis Obispo CA

Appendix A: County of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Santa Margarita California (CSA23) 2010

Water Supply Reliability Report Appendix B: Hydrogeologic Analyses B-1: Hopkins Groundwater Consultants Inc., June 2006, Preliminary

Hydrogeological Study, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision

B-2: Todd Engineers, October 27, 2004, Technical Memorandum Groundwater

Resources of CSA 23 – Santa Margarita Appendix C: Notice of Preparation and Responses Appendix D: California Water Code Sections 350 through 358

v CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Table of Contents

vi CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Appendix E: CA Department of Water Resources, 1991. Final Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project Coastal Branch (Phase II) and Mission Hills Extension

Appendix F: County of San Luis Obispo, March 1992. Final Environmental Impact Report for

the State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities Appendix G: Envicom Corporation, July 1993, Environmental Constraints and Opportunities

Analysis for the Santa Margarita Ranch

Executive Summary

Executive Summary This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) assesses the environmental impacts associated with a project consisting of a physical connection to the State Water Pipeline at Santa Margarita, the establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to County Service Area 23, and the implementation of a Program to exchange water between County Service Area 23 and other State Water participants. The information presented here supplements the March 1992 State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities Final Environmental Impact Report (State Water EIR). The County of San Luis Obispo/County Service Area No. 23 is the project proponent. This SEIR is an informational document that is being used by the general public and governmental agencies to review and evaluate the proposed project. The reader should not rely exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for judgment of the proposed project and alternatives. This SEIR, along with the 1992 State Water EIR, should be consulted for information about the environmental effects and associated mitigation measures. The remainder of this Executive Summary consists of the following sections:

An introduction, which discusses the preparation of this SEIR A brief description of the proposed project; A brief description of the alternatives evaluated throughout this EIR; A discussion of how the environmental setting (i.e., baseline) was

established for the proposed project A summary of key impacts for the project and the alternatives Identification of known areas of controversy and A discussion of the environmentally superior alternative

An Impact Summary Table is provided at the end of the Executive Summary. This table summarizes the impacts and mitigation measures for the project, alternatives, and cumulative projects. The impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section 5.0 of the SEIR. ES.1 Introduction The purpose of the Executive Summary and Impact Summary Table is to provide the reader with a brief overview of the proposed project, the anticipated environmental effects, and the potential mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of the impacts associated with the project. This SEIR was prepared in accordance with State and San Luis Obispo County administrative guidelines established to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, San Luis Obispo County, as the Lead Agency, prepared a Scoping Document for the proposed project and solicited comments through distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP). The responses

ES-1 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

Executive Summary

to the NOP were used to help direct the scope of the analysis and the technical studies in this SEIR. A copy of the NOP and the comments received can be found in Appendix C. ES.2 Proposed Project The project consists of a physical connection to the State Water Pipeline at Santa Margarita (See Figure ES-1, Location Map and Figure ES-2, Vicinity Map), the establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to County Service Area 23 (See Figure ES-3, County Service Area 23 Map), and the implementation of a Program to exchange water between County Service Area 23 and other State Water participants. The details of the Project components include:

The construction of a turnout on the State Water Pipeline (SWP) and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community, as illustrated in the attached Project Site Plan (Figure ES-4). The pipeline will connect the existing County Service Area 23 community water system to the SWP.

A Program with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and/or one or more entities who acquire State Water from the District (Program Participants) pursuant to the District’s contract with the California Department of Water Resources, that is intended to accomplish the following:

a) Establish an annual allocation of five acre feet per year for County

Service Area 23 in the State Water Project b) Establish a drought buffer allocation of five acre feet per year in the

State Water Project c) Establish an agreement or agreements whereby:

i) County Service Area 23 will make water available pursuant to (a) and (b) above to the Program Participants in those years that the District has not declared a water supply emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350-358 ii) County Service Area 23 will, in exchange for water made available pursuant to “i”, have the ability to obtain up to 80 acre feet from Program Participants in years that the District has declared a water supply emergency pursuant to Water Code Section 350-358 iii) County Service Area 23 will, in consideration for water obtained from Program Participants, permanently surrender to the Program Participants an amount equal to 10% of the water it obtains from the Program Participants iv) The Program will establish a “Water Ledger” which will maintain a record of the following:


Executive Summary

(1) The quantities of water made available by County Service Area 23 to Program Participants

(2) The quantities of water obtained by County Service Area 23

(3) The balance of Program Water, which reflects that amount made available by County Service Area 23 less the quantity obtained by County Service Area 23 multiplied by 1.1

The purpose of this project is to provide existing residents of the community with a more reliable water supply in periods of significant drought. ES.3 Description of Project Alternatives Alternatives to the proposed project have been developed as required by state CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. This document has used an alternative screening analysis to limit the number of alternatives evaluated in detail throughout this SEIR. The use of an alternative screening analysis provides the detailed explanation of why some of the alternatives were rejected for further analysis, and assures that only potentially environmentally preferred alternatives are evaluated and compared in the SEIR. The following are alternatives selected as part of the screening analysis: No Project Alternative CEQA requires that the specific alternative of the "No Project" be evaluated along with its impacts as part of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). As such, the No Project Alternative was not subject to the screening analysis and has been evaluated as an alternative to the proposed project throughout this SEIR. Under this alternative no changes to the existing water supply efforts in Santa Margarita would occur. In the event existing groundwater supplies became constrained or unavailable due to a drought or sudden event, such as a natural or man-made disaster, unspecified emergency measures would be required. Water Conservation Under this alternative the community would develop a comprehensive water conservation plan that would attempt to reduce the community’s water needs to the point where existing groundwater supplies would be sufficient during drought periods. More restrictive requirements on water use could be implemented on a permanent basis with higher levels of conservation required in drier years. In the event existing groundwater supplies became unavailable due to a sudden event, such as a natural or man-made disaster, unspecified emergency measures would be required.


Executive Summary

Nacimiento Water Project Under this alternative the community would address its water supply needs during a drought through a connection to the Nacimiento Water Project. The allocation amount would remain the same (five acre feet). Participants in the exchange program would be limited to other existing or potential participants in the Nacimiento Water Project. Because the Nacimiento Water Project provides un-treated water, unlike the State Water Project which provides treated water, three options are listed under this alternative:

Option A: Connect to the Nacimiento Water Project via a pipeline connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). During water supply emergencies, as declared by the County Board of Supervisors, AMWC would, for some level of consideration, provide treated water to Santa Margarita through its existing system. During normal years, no water would flow through Atascadero’s system.

Option B: Establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita

Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento Water Project water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while “banking” groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch.

Option C: Connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the

community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. Costs of this alternative are substantially greater due to the cost of the treatment plant.

Groundwater Alternatives Under these alternatives the community would continue to rely on local groundwater resources to develop drought reliability. Reliability would be established either by accessing additional groundwater outside of the areas currently utilized for ongoing municipal supplies, either within or outside the boundaries of the community, or by enhancing the use of existing groundwater sources. The two overall approaches presented by this alternative follow the two existing groundwater sources currently used by the community: deep well, as in well number 3, or creek alluvium as in well number 4. Therefore, the options within the groundwater alternative are:


Executive Summary

Option A: New deep well near well #3. Development of a new well could provide drought reliability water depending on the quantity of water the well could produce and a suitable location.

Option B: Santa Margarita Elementary School Well. The school well is

also a deep well in the same formation as well #3 and currently provides landscaping irrigation. Development of a new well on the school property would be required since the school’s existing well was not developed as a drinking water supply. An agreement with the school would be necessary to determine how the groundwater is shared during droughts and possible cost impacts if the school’s landscaping is impacted as a result of the community’s use of the water during a drought.

Option C: New Alluvial Well. This option involves the development of a

new well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community.

ES.4 Environmental Setting (i.e., Baseline) Determination The baseline should normally be the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the NOP is published (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125). As such, current water supply and usage figures from the community were utilized. ES.5 Impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives In the Impact Summary Table and throughout this SEIR, impacts of the proposed project, alternatives, and the cumulative effects have been classified using the categories Class I, ll, llI, and IV as described below.

Class I - Significant adverse impacts that are unavoidable Class II – Impacts that are less than significant with mitigation Class Ill - Adverse but less than significant impacts Class IV - Beneficial impacts

The term "significant" is used to characterize the magnitude of the projected impact. For the purposes of this SEIR, a significant impact is a substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the local project area or the area adjacent to the project in comparison to the thresholds of significance established for the resource or issue area. These thresholds of significance are discussed by issue area in Section 5.0. To the extent feasible, distinctions are also made between short-term versus long-term duration. These levels of characterization are shown, along with mitigation measures for each impact, in the Impact Summary Table.


Executive Summary

Short-term impacts - Impacts that would only be present during construction of the proposed project and would cease after or shortly after (within 6 months) construction of all phases is completed.

Long-term impacts - Impacts that may or may not start with the start of

construction, however will continue after construction is completed for longer than 6 months.

Typically, long-term impacts would be of greater concern than short-term impacts. However, each alternative’s impacts are limited to either the short-term construction phase, and/or the operational phase; the operational phase impacts would by nature occur only during periods of prolonged drought. Therefore, even the “long-term” impacts of each alternative are limited in duration. The remainder of this section provides a brief discussion of the Class I impacts identified for the proposed project as well as the alternatives. A detailed listing of the impacts can be found in the Impact Summary Tables. ES.6 Significant Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project Several potentially significant impacts were identified for the proposed project, all of which could be mitigated to a level considered less than significant (Class II). No unavoidable significant (Class I) impacts were identified for the proposed project. The significant, but mitigable, impacts include: Geology, Seismicity & Soils In the event of an earthquake, ground acceleration of 0.11g to 0.5g could occur in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline connection, causing adverse significant impacts in the north county area. Mercalli intensities ranging from VII to IX could result (See Figure 5.2-1). A Mercalli Intensity of VII would damage concrete irrigation ditches, while a Mercalli Intensity of IX would break underground pipes. Potential impacts due to subsidence are also significant. Potential significant adverse impacts due to liquefaction may occur in areas where the pipeline would cross alluvium containing high water levels. An earthquake with a Mercalli Intensity of IX would cause liquefaction in alIuviated areas. Mitigation for geology, seismicity and soils impacts consists of site specific geotechnical investigations coupled with appropriate engineering design for the associated water infrastructure. Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation The severity of flooding and erosion impacts for a particular location is dependent on the need for stream diversions during construction, the amount of activity planned to occur within a stream channel or flood plain, and the construction


Executive Summary

schedule. Based on the planned alignment of the proposed pipeline, construction activities are possible near the seasonal drainage channel along the southern boundary of the site. Hydrologic information on county streams indicates runoff generally occurs only during and immediately after precipitation, but stream flow can rise rapidly and carry large amounts of debris during storms. Based on historical floods in the Salinas River system, the greatest possibility of flooding within the county occurs from December to March. Therefore, if all construction is limited to summer months, the probability of severe flooding impacts would be low. If work is not limited to the dry season, potential impacts from construction near the drainage channel could be significant. If excavated soils or stockpiled soils and backfill material were not protected from erosive factors such as wind and rain, construction of the pipeline could contribute to sedimentation problems downstream. Potential adverse impacts to surface water, stream channel, and soil resources during construction are significant due to flooding, erosion, and downstream sedimentation. In the unlikely event of a total pipeline rupture, a volume of released water could cause a great amount of localized erosion because water is discharged under high pressure onto the ground surface. As eroded sediments move downstream, sedimentation within stream channels would also result, creating a significant impact to surface waters. Mitigation measures include the application of standard construction period erosion control measures, followed by the development of emergency response and repair procedures for an accidental rupture, a regular inspection and maintenance program to detect possible problems with pipeline integrity. Air Quality Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or measurable increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Water pressure at the turnout is sufficient to move state water into the CSA 23 distribution system; therefore no substantial increases in energy use would occur. Mitigation measures include the application of standard construction period air quality protection measures. Noise Noise impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional


Executive Summary

equipment, personnel, or increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Construction period noise mitigation measures include limiting work hours to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, providing two-week advance notice to residences within 500 feet of the construction site, and maintaining proper mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines to reduce noise to the maximum extent feasible. Biological Resources Biological impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. Mitigation measures involve clearly delineating the construction area on all construction plans and limiting all work to the delineated area. Cultural Resources Although the project’s disturbance area is small, the area is considered sensitive for both cultural and paleontological resources. Proposed improvements occur primarily within areas previously disturbed by underground utility installation and roadway construction. The area was monitored during the construction of the State water line and no buried or surface archaeological deposits were discovered. No known resources would be disturbed by the proposed project. Never-the-less, disturbed materials could be encountered during construction. Mitigation measures consist of standard measure to ensure that any unanticipated archaeological discoveries are treated and assessed as required by State and Federal law. Land Use The proposed project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy that identifies water conservation as the primary method to serve the county’s population. The project would have no significant impacts to land use because it is compatible with the underlying land use designations outlined in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. Mitigation to address the General Plan inconsistency requires the project to incorporate the comprehensive water conservation measures described under the water conservation alternative as an integral part of the proposed action.


Executive Summary

ES.7 Significant Impacts Associated with Alternatives This section provides a summary of the significant and unavoidable (Class I) and the significant but mitigable (Class II) impacts associated with the alternatives to the proposed project and compares them to those that were identified for the proposed project. No Project Alternative The No Project alternative would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials Biological Resources Land Use Agricultural Resources

The No Project alternative would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: None

Water Conservation The Water Conservation alternative would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials Biological Resources Land Use Agricultural Resources

The Water Conservation alternative would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: None

Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option A Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option A would not result in any class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts. This alternative would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas:


Executive Summary

Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources Land Use Utilities & Public Services Transportation & Circulation

Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option B Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option B would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hazards & Hazardous Materials Biological Resources Land Use Agricultural Resources

Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option B would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources Land Use Utilities & Public Services Transportation & Circulation

Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option C Nacimiento Water Project Alternative Option C would not result in any class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts. This alternative would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources Land Use Utilities & Public Services Transportation & Circulation


Executive Summary

Groundwater Alternative Option A Groundwater Alternative Option A would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Groundwater Alternative Option A would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources Land Use

Groundwater Alternative Option B Groundwater Alternative Option B would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Groundwater Alternative Option B would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources Land Use

Groundwater Alternative Option C Groundwater Alternative Option C would result in class I (Significant and Unavoidable) impacts in the following areas: Hydrology and Water Quality Hazards & Hazardous Materials Biological Resources Land Use Agricultural Resources


Executive Summary

Groundwater Alternative Option C would result in class II (Significant but Mitigable) impacts in the following areas: Geology, Seismicity & Soils Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation Air Quality Noise Cultural Resources

ES.8 Mitigation Measures A list of mitigation measures has been developed for a number of the impacts identified for the proposed project and alternatives. A comprehensive listing of the mitigation measures are listed in the Impact Summary Tables at the end of this section and in chapter 8.0. Successful implementation of these measures is required to avoid potentially significant impacts to the environment. ES.9 Areas of Controversy The primary area of controversy associated with the proposed project is growth inducement. Concerns have been expressed regarding the potential for this project, or any project that addresses water supply in CSA 23, to result in additional growth both within and adjacent to the community of Santa Margarita. This concern stems primarily from the long history of development proposals on the approximate 14,000 acre Santa Margarita Ranch which surrounds CSA 23 and the community of Santa Margarita. Recently, a proposed cluster subdivision of 112 parcels was approved by the County and of this writing is under litigation. Environmental documents for the project highlighted the water supply issue. Therefore, there is sensitivity and concern regarding the relationship of water supply and growth in the project area. Chapter 7 of the SEIR addresses the growth inducing potential for the project and the alternatives in detail. ES.10 Environmentally Superior Alternative The Proposed Project is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Both the No Project Alternative and the Water Conservation (alone) Alternative were found to not be environmentally superior because they would result in placing the community in competition for scarce drought period water supplies with both agricultural and biological resources. Also, with the No Project Alternative (no action), supply shortages during drought periods could occur in the community, and, if water conservation efforts are insufficient during a drought, the Water Conservation Alternative could also result in supply shortages.


Executive Summary


ES.11 Growth Inducement CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (g) states that an EIR must 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, using a reasonable worst case analysis. It specifically states that projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (such as bringing supplemental water supplies to an area), may "further tax" other existing community service facilities, and this impact must be addressed. Removing what was previously a constraint to development, by supplying supplemental water, could also affect the expected rate of growth in a community, unless adopted growth management policies exist to regulate the amount of development.

Executive Summary

IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE Exhibit ES-1

IMPACT SUMMARY TABLE

Alternatives and Impact Class (1)

Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C Description of Impact

Mitigation Measures

Hydrology & Water Quality

I

IV

I

IV

III

IV

I

I

I

Reliance on local groundwater during droughts for any alternative could result in significant hydrological impacts. Importing water from outside the area would result in beneficial impacts during drought periods.

No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the significant impacts.

Geology, Seismicity & Soils

III

II

III

II

II

II

II

II

II

In the event of an earthquake, ground acceleration of 0.11g to 0.5g could occur in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline connection, causing adverse significant impacts in the north county area. Mercalli intensities ranging from VII to IX could result. (Figure 5.2-1). A Mercalli Intensity of VII would damage concrete irrigation ditches, while a Mercalli Intensity of IX would break underground pipes. Potential impacts due to subsidence are also significant. Potential significant adverse impacts due to liquefaction may occur in areas where the pipeline would cross alluvium containing high water levels. An earthquake with a Mercalli Intensity of IX would cause liquefaction in alIuviated areas.

GEO 1: If a shallow ground-water table is encountered, dewatering will be necessary during excavation for the project. Shallow groundwater may be avoided by timing the excavation to occur during the dry season. GEO 2: Excavation safety impacts may be mitigated when appropriate by trench side-wall protection devices such as buttresses and shoring. Excavations shall conform to OSHA's regulations. Side wall protection is only required in trenches 5 feet deep or more. GEO 3: Specific seismic geotechnical investigations for the pipeline shall be conducted and included in the final project construction plans. GEO 4: Effects of seismic shaking shall be

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact ES-14 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011 II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact

Executive Summary

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters applicable to the project. Such seismic design practices assume a design ground acceleration that is equal to two-thirds the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. A certified engineering geologist or civil engineer would need to conduct site specific investigations to determine what the design criteria should be. These investigations shall be conducted prior to final design. GEO 5: Where the potential for liquefaction is great, such as in poorly consolidated alluvium, mitigation will be needed. These mitigations may include strengthened pipe and pipe anchors, flexible piping and/or removal of material subject to liquefaction. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be conducted in all areas with significant liquefaction potential to identify appropriate design criteria. GEO 6: Settlement or subsidence impacts will be mitigated by including flexible piping, strengthened pipe and/or removal of material and re-compaction where determined to be necessary by the design engineer.

Drainage, Erosion & Sedimentation

III

II

III

II

II

II

II

II

II

The severity of flooding and erosion impacts for a particular location is dependent on the need for stream diversions during construction, the amount of activity planned

DES 1: An Erosion Control Plan will be prepared in conjunction with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (if required) to devise specific soil erosion control measures. The plan would include

Executive Summary

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011 II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact

ES-16



Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

to occur within a stream channel or flood plain, and the construction schedule. Based on the planned alignment of the proposed pipeline, construction activities are possible near the seasonal drainage channel along the southern boundary of the site. Hydrologic information on county streams indicates runoff generally occurs only during and immediately after precipitation, but stream flow can rise rapidly and carry large amounts of debris during storms. Based on historical floods in the Salinas River system, the greatest possibility of flooding within the county occurs from December to March. Therefore, if all construction is limited to summer months, the probability of severe flooding impacts would be low. If work is not limited to the dry season, potential impacts from construction near the drainage channel could be significant. If excavated soils or stockpiled soils and backfill material were not protected from erosive factors such as wind and rain, construction of the pipeline could contribute to sedimentation problems downstream. Potential adverse impacts to surface water, stream channel, and soil resources during construction are significant due to flooding, erosion, and downstream sedimentation. In the unlikely event of a total pipeline

but not be limited to the following measures: • Construction activities through areas of concern will be scheduled during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) if feasible. • Revegetation of areas disturbed or cleared during construction will occur after construction is completed and before the rainy season. DES 2: Inspect erosion control measures daily and repair all damage immediately. The following proposed mitigation measures are considered necessary whenever a chance of rain, however slight, is forecast by the National Weather Service or local news media. DES 3: Prepare in advance and have construction crews ready to implement an emergency construction site securing procedure, which will include personnel and equipment evacuation, trench closure, and materials removal procedures. DES 4: Heavy equipment and construction activities will be restricted to the defined construction ROW. Equipment access and construction through drainages should be conducted from the banks rather than within the drainage.

Executive Summary





Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

rupture, a volume of released water could cause a great amount of localized erosion because water is discharged under high pressure onto the ground surface. As eroded sediments move downstream, sedimentation within stream channels would also result, creating a significant impact to surface waters.

DES 5: Do not store construction materials or spoils within the channel or banks. DES 6: Obtain weather updates on a daily basis, or more frequently if inclement conditions are threatening. DES 7: CSA 23 will develop and implement a plan providing emergency response and repair procedures for an accidental rupture. The plan will include remedial erosion control measures for areas downstream of the rupture. DES 8: CSA 23 will implement a regular inspection and maintenance program to detect possible problems with pipeline integrity. DES 9: CSA 23 will provide thorough inspection of the pipeline materials and construction techniques while the pipelines are being installed. The County will specify the use of materials with proven reliability only.

Air Quality

III

II

III

II

II

II

II

II

II

Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or measurable increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Water pressure at the turnout is sufficient to move state water into the CSA

AQ-1: Project contract documents will include the following dust control measures: a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be

Executive Summary

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact ES-18 II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact

CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011



Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

23 distribution system; therefore no substantial increases in energy use would occur. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated.

used whenever possible. c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off

Executive Summary



(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact ES-19 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011 II = Significant but Mitigable

Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B Description of Impact Mitigation Measures

C trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. All PM10 mitigation measures required must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the County should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to initiation of construction. AQ-2: Prior to any grading activities associated with the project, the County will ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the Air Pollution Control District. If NOA is found at the site, the County will comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.

III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact

Executive Summary

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact ES-20 II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact

CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011



Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

AQ-3: Project contract documents will include the following idling restrictions near sensitive receptors for both on and off-road equipment: 1. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; 2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; 3. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible; and, 4. Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced at the construction site. AQ-4: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: 1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal 2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate 3. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted 4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and

Executive Summary




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


C haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's construction phase thresholds 5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance 6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering Division at 781-5912.

Noise

III

II

III

II

II

II

II

II

II

Noise impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Water pressure at the turnout is sufficient to move state water into the CSA 23 distribution system; therefore, no new pumping facilities would be installed. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated.

N-1: Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. Non-noise generating construction activities such as interior painting are not subject to these restrictions. N-2: Provide two-week advance notice to residences within 500 feet of the construction site. The announcements shall state where and when construction will be scheduled. It shall also provide tips on reducing noise intrusion, e.g. closing windows facing the construction area. N-3: Maintain proper mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines to reduce noise to the maximum extent feasible.


Executive Summary





Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

Hazards & Hazardous Materials

I

III

I

III

I

III

I

I

I

The substantial risk of degradation of groundwater in the CSA-23 area due to pollution is therefore due to a number of factors: • The potential sources of pollution are numerous, including hazardous material spills on transportation corridors; • Existing land uses (concentrated septic systems, unlined sewage lagoons, oil storage and transmission facilities) have been shown to degrade groundwater in other areas; • A substantial portion of the groundwater supply is contained in a shallow aquifer. • Although the probability of a pollution event large enough to degrade the community’s groundwater source is low, the effects of such an event would be substantial. Therefore, the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from the groundwater alternatives are considered significant and unavoidable.

No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the significant impacts.

Biological Resources

I

II

I

III

I

III

III

III

I

Biological impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or

BIO-1: The project limits will be clearly delineated on all construction plans. Prior to any construction work beginning, including any vegetation clearing, flagging and/or fencing, as required by the biological monitor, shall be placed

Executive Summary





Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated and would therefore not generate additional noise that could impact wildlife. Biological impacts from any alternative involving groundwater stem from the incremental lowering of water levels in aquatic habitats during periods of drought. No feasible mitigation measures for these impacts are available.

to clearly delineate the project limits. No construction work (including storage of materials) shall occur outside of the project limits. Any required fencing shall remain in place during the entire construction period and checked as needed by the environmental monitor and/or resident engineer.

Cultural Resources

III

II

III

II

II

II

II

II

II

Although the project’s disturbance area is small, the area is considered sensitive for both cultural and paleontological resources. A records search was conducted by the County, and a Phase One Archaeological survey was conducted by the County’s archaeologist. No archaeological or historical surface deposits were observed during the surface survey. Proposed improvements occur primarily within areas previously disturbed by underground utility installation and roadway construction. The area was monitored during the construction of the State water line and no buried or surface archaeological deposits were discovered. No known resources would be disturbed by the proposed project. Based on

CR-1 During construction, in the event cultural resources are unearthed or discovered, the following standards apply: a) Construction activities shall cease and the Public Works Environmental Programs Division shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. The County shall implement the mitigation as required by the Environmental Coordinator. b) In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are discovered

Executive Summary




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


C the location of proposed improvements, significant impacts to paleontological resources is unlikely to occur based on the presence of existing development and underground infrastructure, depth of cut, area of disturbance, and underlying alluvial soils within a majority of the area proposed for disturbance. Never-the-less, disturbed materials could be encountered during construction.

during construction, the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the Public Works Environmental Programs Division so that proper disposition may be accomplished. CR-2 Prior to completion of final design, the county will conduct a phase I archaeological survey, conducted by a qualified archaeologist approved by the Environmental Coordinator that assesses the potential impacts of all ground disturbing activities. The project shall implement the recommendations of the archaeologist, as required by the Environmental Coordinator. Recommendations may include Phase II testing and/or data recovery. CR-3 If cultural sites are discovered near work areas during the Phase I survey, and if recommended by the project archaeologist, during all ground disturbing construction activities, the County will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all earth disturbing activities, per the approved monitoring plan. If any significant archaeological resources or human remains are found during monitoring, work shall stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals.


Executive Summary




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


C CR-4 Upon completion of all monitoring/mitigation activities the archaeologist will submit a report to the Environmental Coordinator summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met.

Land Use

I

II

I

II

I

II

II

II

I

The proposed project (and the Nacimiento Alternatives) are inconsistent with policy WR 1.2 which identifies water conservation as the primary method to serve the county’s population. The project should include water conservation as an element of the action alternative. The project would have no significant impacts to land use because it is compatible with the underlying land use designations outlined in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. Alternatives utilizing groundwater as a source are inconsistent with polices contained in the County’s Agriculture Element, Conservation Element and the Open Space Element because they would divert water away from agriculture and biological resources.

LU-1: The project will incorporate the comprehensive water conservation measures described under the water conservation alternative as an integral part of the proposed action. No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the significant land use policy impacts of groundwater based alternatives.

Utilities & Public Services

III

III

III

II

II

II

III

III

III

Construction of alternatives could result in minor traffic delays and minor amounts of water use for dust control; no significant

Construction of any of the Nacimiento options would require the application of standard construction mitigation for impacts to roads and


Executive Summary




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


C impacts to utilities and public services were identified for any alternative.

other existing utilities, as specified in the Nacimiento Water Project FEIR.

Transportation & Circulation

III

III

III

II

II

II

III

III

III

The proposed project would have no impacts on transportation and circulation. According to the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, the impacts to transportation and circulation from the Nacimiento Alternative are considered significant but mitigable to a level of less than significant. Along the route of the Santa Margarita pipeline, motorists could expect intermittent delays during construction due to lane closures, which, although similar in both extent and duration as those generated by installation of the main line, would be more manageable because the smaller pipe requires less excavation, soil handling and easier management of the pipe laying process.

Construction of any of the Nacimiento options would require the application of standard construction mitigation for impacts to roads and circulation, as specified in the Nacimiento Water Project FEIR.

Aesthetics & Visual Resources

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

Long term aesthetic and visual impacts could result from the construction and operation of the new water facilities. Although such facilities have the potential to result in visual impacts due to their tendency to rely on industrial and institutional structural elements such as chain link fencing, visible tanks and pipes, outdoor storage yards and security lighting, each of these impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level through the use of context

No mitigation measures are required for the proposed project.


Executive Summary




Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


C sensitive architectural design, shielded lighting, and good housekeeping procedures.

Agricultural Resources

I

III

I

III

I

III

III

III

I

The proposed project would have no effects on agricultural resources. For those alternatives involving continued or increased reliance on groundwater, continued reliance on groundwater during a drought period could result in impacts to adjacent agricultural lands by reducing the amount of water available for agricultural uses. This in turn could increase the pressure to convert agricultural lands to other uses. The degree to which continued drought period groundwater pumping could impact agricultural resources is difficult to predict, however, historical evidence indicates that pumping of larger agricultural wells located in the shallow aquifer has affected urban wells in both Santa Margarita and Garden Farms. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that pumping of urban wells would likely affect area agricultural wells.

No feasible mitigation measures are available that would reduce the significant impacts of the groundwater, conservation, and no-project alternatives on agricultural resources.

Growth Inducement

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

III

Because the project provides a limited water supply to be used only in times of extended drought, and given the existing physical, regulatory, and policy limits on expanding

No mitigation measures are necessary.


Executive Summary

(1) Impact Class: I = Significant and Unavoidable Impact ES-28 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011 II = Significant but Mitigable III = Not Significant IV = Beneficial Impact



Nac

imie

nto

G

rou

nd

wat

er

Issue Area N

o P

roje

ct

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion


Mitigation Measures

the water supply, the project will not foster a substantial amount of population growth, and certainly not an amount that would allow the community to exceed general plan buildout. The increment of population growth that could occur as a result of the increased security of the water supply situation in CSA 23 cannot be considered to be considerable in relation to the existing population or the ability of roadways, air quality, and schools to accommodate that level of growth. From a regional and cumulative growth perspective, traffic on Highway 101 will, in the future, suffer from reduced levels of service, with an increment of the impact generated by traffic originating in Santa Margarita. Similar to regional growth-induced traffic impacts, air quality in the Salinas Valley may, in the future, deteriorate and an increment of the impact will be generated by additional growth in Santa Margarita. With respect to schools, Santa Margarita Elementary School is approaching capacity. Never-the-less, growth generated by securing the water supply in times of drought does not constitute a substantial increase, and is therefore not significant.

DelNorte

Siskiyou Modoc

Humboldt Trinity ShastaLassen

TehamaPlumas

ButteMendocinoGlenn Sierra

YubaLakeNevada

ColusaSutter Placer

ElDoradoYolo

AlpineSonoma Napa Sacramento

Mono

AmadorSolano

CalaverasTuolumneMarin San

JoaquinContraCosta

Stanislaus

SanFrancisco Alameda

Mariposa

Madera

SanMateo

Merced

Fresno

SantaClara

Inyo

SantaCruz

SanBenito

MontereyTulare

Kings

SanBernardino

Kern

SantaBarbara

Ventura LosAngeles

RiversideOrange

ImperialSanDiego

P a c i f i c O

c e a n³0 50 10025

Miles

Legend^ Project Area

San Luis Obispo County

Other Counties

San Luis Obispo County Service Area #23Santa Margarita Drought Reliability Project

FIGURE ES-1Location Map

^

CITY OF ATASCADERO

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

£¤101

|ÿ229

|ÿ58

|ÿ41

|ÿ1 ³0 0.9 1.80.45

Miles


FIGURE ES-2Vicinity Map

CSA 23 Boundary

RRR

R

R

WaterStorageTanks

Marg

arita

Ave

Yerba

Buen

a Ave

Maria A ve

Mur p

hy A v

e

Pina l

Ave

Encin

a Ave

K St

G St

H St

I St

F St

J St

Helena Ave

I St

Doroth

y Ln

Wilhe

lmina

Ave

El Camino

Real

|ÿ58

|ÿ58|ÿ58


FIGURE ES-3County Service Area 23 Map

µ0 400 800200

Feet

LegendR Wells

Water Tanks

CSA 23 Boundary

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

FIGURE ES-4

Proposed Project Site Plan San Luis Obispo County Service Area #23


1.0 Introduction

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) addresses the environmental effects of a physical connection to the State Water Pipeline at Santa Margarita, the establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to County Service Area 23 (CSA 23) and the implementation of a Program to exchange water between CSA 23 and other State Water participants, for drought reliability. The information presented here supplements the March 1992 State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities Final Environmental Impact Report (State Water EIR). The 1992 EIR addressed the environmental effects of the State Water Project as well as the effects of serving the community of Santa Margarita with 100 acre feet of state water. However, the community at that time, through the Board of Supervisors of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, chose not to join the State Water Project. The main pipeline of the State Water Project was constructed along the eastern boundary of the community, serving water to communities south of Santa Margarita, without a connection to the community’s water distribution system. Santa Margarita is currently supplied solely with water via groundwater wells located within the community. This SEIR has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended and the latest State Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA. The need for a SEIR is justified based upon the identification of three drought reliability water supply alternatives for the community of Santa Margarita which were not analyzed in the State Water EIR. These three new alternatives are: 1) water conservation, 2) connection to the Nacimiento Water Project and 3) development of additional local groundwater supplies. The potential environmental effects of connecting the community to the Nacimiento Water Project are fully analyzed in the Final EIR for the Nacimiento Water Project, certified in 2004. The effects of connecting the community to the State Water Project are analyzed in the 1992 Final EIR; the effects of water conservation and accessing additional groundwater supplied have not been fully analyzed. Therefore, this Supplement focuses on summarizing the information contained in the Nacimiento EIR, updating the relevant information contained in the State Water EIR, and analyzing the water conservation and groundwater pumping alternatives.

1-1 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

1.0 Introduction

1.2 Regulatory Background The basic goal of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is to develop and maintain a high-quality environment now and in the future. The specific goals of CEQA are for California's public agencies to: 1) Identify the significant environmental effects of their actions and 2) Avoid those significant environmental effects where feasible or 3) Mitigate those significant environmental effects where feasible CEQA applies to "projects" proposed to be undertaken or requiring approval by State and local government agencies. Projects are activities which have the potential to have a physical impact on the environment. The basic steps of the environmental review process are: 1) Determine if the activity is a project subject to CEQA 2) Determine if the project is exempt from CEQA 3) Perform an Initial Study to identify the environmental impacts of the project

and determine whether the identified impacts are significant. Based on its findings of "significance", the lead agency prepares one of the following environmental review documents:

a) Negative Declaration if it finds no significant impacts b) Mitigated Negative Declaration if it finds significant impacts but revises

the project to avoid or mitigate those significant impacts c) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) if it finds significant impacts The purpose of an EIR is to provide State and local agencies and the general public with detailed information on the potentially significant environmental effects which a proposed project is likely to have and to list ways which the significant environmental effects may be minimized and indicate alternatives to the project. 1.3 Use of a Supplemental EIR Once an EIR has been prepared for a project, a Lead Agency can generally rely on that EIR as the CEQA “clearance” for that project. However, in some cases, projects or the circumstances under which they occur may change after the EIR is completed. More commonly, a period of time passes between completion of the EIR and the implementation of the project. At this point, a Lead Agency must determine whether the original EIR is still adequate for the project or whether an Addendum to an EIR or a Subsequent EIR needs to be prepared. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 describes the circumstances under which a subsequent (supplement) to an EIR is appropriate:


1.0 Introduction

State CEQA Guidelines section 15162: Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations (a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the original EIR or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

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

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially

more severe than shown in the previous EIR (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to

be feasible would in fact be feasible (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably

different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative

The key findings for preparation of this supplemental EIR are in section 15162(3) (C) in that:

1. The community has decided to focus on drought reliability for the existing population as a separate goal, dropping the two-part goal of securing a water supply for both drought reliability and the build-out population


1.0 Introduction

2. The Nacimiento Water Project is now considered a feasible alternative (although fully analyzed in its own EIR) where in the State Water EIR the Nacimiento project was not developed well enough to be considered viable,

3. The additional groundwater wells alternative was not examined in the

State Water EIR 4. The water conservation alternative was not examined in either the State

Water or Nacimiento Water EIR 1.4 Scoping Process In accordance with the provisions of the State CEQA Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) identifying four drought reliability water supply alternatives was distributed on July 6, 2010. The four alternatives identified in the NOP were: No Project. Under the “no project” alternative water would continue to be supplied with existing wells (or new wells located in substantially the same source location as the existing wells). No additional water supplies for drought reliability would be developed. Water Conservation. Under this alternative the community would develop a comprehensive water conservation plan that would attempt to reduce the community’s water needs to the point where existing groundwater supplies would be sufficient during drought periods. More restrictive requirements on water use in all areas could be implemented on a permanent basis with higher levels of conservation required in drier years. In the event existing groundwater supplies became unavailable due to a sudden event, such as a natural or man-made disaster, unspecified emergency measures would be required. Nacimiento Water. Under this alternative the community would address its water supply needs during a drought through a connection to the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP). The allocation amount would remain the same (five acre feet). Participants in the exchange program would be limited to other existing or potential participants in the NWP. Because the Nacimiento Project provides un-treated water, unlike the State Water Project which provides treated water, three options are listed under this alternative:

A. Connect to the NWP via a pipeline connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). During water supply emergencies, as declared by the County Board of Supervisors, AMWC would, for some level of consideration, provide treated water to Santa Margarita through its existing system. During normal years, no water would flow through Atascadero’s system.


1.0 Introduction

B. Establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using NWP supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take NWP water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while “banking” groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch.

C. Connect the NWP directly to the community’s water system via a new

water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. Costs of this alternative are substantially greater due to the cost of the treatment plant.

Groundwater. Under this alternative the community would develop and construct additional groundwater wells in an effort to ensure drought reliability by accessing additional groundwater within the source areas currently utilized for ongoing municipal supplies, either within or near the boundaries of the community. Three options are listed under this alternative:

A. New deep well near well #3. Development of a new well could provide drought reliability water depending on the quantity of water the well could produce and a suitable location.

B. Santa Margarita Elementary School Well. The school well is also a deep

well in the same formation as well #3 and currently provides landscaping irrigation. Development of a new well on the school property would be required since the school’s existing well was not developed as a drinking water supply. An agreement with the school would be necessary to determine how the groundwater is shared during droughts and possible cost impacts if the school’s landscaping is impacted as a result of the community’s use of the water during a drought.

C. New Alluvial Well. This option involves the development of a new well

tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community.

1.5 Issue Areas to be Examined This report addresses potential impacts associated with each of these four alternatives. These include the following issues as determined by County staff and responses to the NOP:

Hydrology and Water Quality

Geology, Seismicity and Soils

Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation


1.0 Introduction

Air Quality

Noise

Hazards and Hazardous Materials


Cultural and paleontological Resources

Land Use

Utilities and Public Services

Transportation/Circulation

Aesthetics/Visual Resources

Agricultural Resources Other study areas typically fully analyzed in a full-scope EIR were not identified as having the likelihood of significant effects or are already addressed in the State Water EIR and are not included in this supplemental EIR. A significant environmental effect is defined in CEQA as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the proposed development. In this report, information is organized to emphasize these potentially significant impacts. Each study area includes a section in which the Environmental Setting, Regulatory Setting, and Significance Criteria are discussed. Then, in order to allow a more efficient comparison among the four alternatives, each study area includes a discussion of the Impacts and Mitigation Measures for each alternative. Following in each study area is a discussion of the cumulative impacts of the proposed project when added to those of past, present, and probable future projects in the area. Where a significant impact appears to be unavoidable or not mitigable to insignificance, a statement of overriding considerations would be required. CEQA stipulates in Section 15093 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA that:

a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”


1.0 Introduction

b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record.

c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the

statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. This statement does not substitute for, and shall be in addition to, findings required pursuant to Section 15091.

1.6 Use of this Document

The purpose of the publication of a Draft SEIR is to allow the public and applicable agencies to review and comment on the findings of the report. The County has prepared responses to all comments on the adequacy of the Draft Supplemental EIR received during this period. This Final Supplemental EIR is comprised of the Draft Supplemental EIR, comments and response to comments, minor changes to the EIR is sections 2.0 (Project Description) and 5.4 (Air Quality) necessary to address comments, and the technical appendices. Changes in the document are shown as underlined text. San Luis Obispo County is the Lead Agency for the Supplemental EIR and the County Board of Supervisors has the responsibility for determining the adequacy of the Supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA. 1.7 Relationship to Other Documents As noted above, this EIR supplements the 1992 State Water EIR. The analysis contained here is intended to make the changes and additions necessary to make the State Water EIR adequate for the evaluation of the currently proposed project. An important consideration is that the State Water EIR addressed a wide range of impacts to resources throughout San Luis Obispo County. This supplement focuses only on those effects that would occur as a result of the delivery of water to Santa Margarita. The State Water EIR will not be updated to address delivery of water to other communities in similar situations even where it may no longer accurately or adequately describe the impacts that could result because the supplement focuses on the project being considered for approval, as required by CEQA. The 2003 Nacimiento Water Project EIR addresses the environmental effects of that project, including serving the community of Santa Margarita with 100 acre feet of water. The Nacimiento EIR is incorporated by reference into this Supplement, as it contains the analysis of a feasible alternative to State Water. Construction of the Nacimiento Water Project is nearly complete with deliveries to participants having begun in late 2010.


1.0 Introduction


Copies of the March 1992 Final Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project, Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities as well as the December 2003 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Nacimiento Water Project are available for review from the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works.

2.0 Project Description

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Proposed Project The Project consists of a physical connection to the State Water Pipeline at Santa Margarita (See Figure 2-1, Project Location Map and Figure 2-2 Project Vicinity Map), the establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to County Service Area 23 (CSA 23) (See Figure 2-3, CSA 23 Map) and the implementation of a Program to exchange water between CSA 23 and other State Water participants (See Figure 2-4, State Water Coastal Branch participants). The details of the Project components include: The construction of a turnout on the State Water Pipeline (SWP) and the

construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline connecting to the existing facilities at CSA 23’s Well # 3 compound at the northeast corner of the community, as illustrated in Figure 2-5, the Project Site Plan The pipeline will connect the existing CSA 23 community water system to the SWP.

A Program with the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and/or one or more entities who acquire State Water from the District (Program Participants) pursuant to the District’s contract with the California Department of Water Resources, that is intended to accomplish the following:

a) Establish an annual allocation of five acre feet per year for CSA 23 in the State Water Project

b) Establish a drought buffer allocation of five acre feet per year in the State Water Project,

c) Establish an agreement or agreements whereby:

i) CSA 23 will make water available pursuant to (a) and (b) above to the Program Participants in those years that the District has not declared a water supply emergency pursuant to California Water Code Section 350 - 358

ii) CSA 23 will, in exchange for water made available pursuant to “i”, have the ability to obtain up to 80 acre feet from Program Participants in years that the District has declared a water supply emergency pursuant to Water Code Section 350 - 358

iii) CSA 23 will, in consideration for water obtained from Program Participants, permanently surrender to the Program Participants an amount equal to 10% of the water it obtains from the Program Participants



iv) The Program will establish a “Water Ledger” which will maintain a record of the following:

(1) The quantities of water made available by CSA 23 to Program Participants

(2) The quantities of water obtained by CSA 23

(3) The balance of Program Water, which reflects that amount made available by CSA 23 less the quantity obtained by CSA 23 multiplied by 1.1

The State Water line was constructed by the Department of Water Resources and is currently operated by the Central Coast Water Authority (Figure 2-4). The line runs through a field adjacent to Well #3, and there is a blow-off assembly located approximately 30’ from the well site. According to as-built drawings provided by the Central Coast Water Authority, the existing State Water line has an interior diameter of approximately 51”, with 6” diameter steel blow off piping. It is proposed to tie into the existing 6” steel blow off piping underground, approximately 3’ from the existing concrete blow off vault. The connection will include cutting and removal of a portion of the existing piping and installation of a 6”x6”x6” steel tee and 6” butterfly valve (See Figure 2-5). A new 6” steel buried waterline will be constructed from the tee connection to flow metering and control equipment housed in a secure enclosure approximately 15’ wide by 20’ long. The enclosure may be constructed as a below ground cast-in-place concrete vault located on the County well-site property, or alternatively if approved by the State Department of Water Resources as an above-ground wood-framed structure adjacent to (and of similar construction to) the existing Well #3 equipment buildings. The selection of the enclosure alternative will be coordinated with the Central Coast Water Authority during the final design of the connection. A new 6” steel buried waterline will exit the proposed flow-metering facilities and connect to an existing 6” PVC waterline from the Well #3 facilities. Depending on the enclosure alternative selected, the existing 6’ chain link fencing at the Well #3 site will be extended to create an approximately 50’ by 50’ enclosure with additional swing gates to provide security to the facilities and access to the blow-off facility by authorized personnel. The proposed construction will require a temporary site disturbance of approximately 5,000 square feet, and may require additional asphalt paving for parking and/or driveway access of approximately 15’ wide x 20’ long. Unless required by the Central Coast Water Authority, no paving is proposed in the State Water pipeline easement. Trenching for the proposed waterline improvements will result in excavation of approximately 50 cubic yards. Construction of the below-ground enclosure would require excavation of approximately 150 cubic yards. Electrical service will be extended to the enclosure from the Well #3 compound. Connection will be made to the existing fiber optics line at the site for telemetry. The electrical service and telemetry extensions will most likely be



included in underground conduits. External lighting will not be required for the sub-surface vault alternative, but may be included for the above-ground enclosure option (minor over-door lighting). The proposed project is within the Agriculture and Residential Suburban land use categories within the community of Santa Margarita. The site is in the Salinas River, Santa Margarita Urban Area, planning area. CSA 23 consists of the community of Santa Margarita, an unincorporated community in north-central San Luis Obispo County (Figure 2-1 and 2-2). The Santa Margarita water system has been operated since the 1940’s by the County of San Luis Obispo, originally as “Waterworks District Number 6” and since July 27, 1999 as “County Service Area Number 23” or “CSA 23” (Figure 2-3). The County Board of Supervisors governs CSA 23 and is responsible for all policy and budget approvals. The County Department of Public Works operates and maintains the water system. The CSA 23 Advisory Group consists of seven members of the community who monitor the operation of the water system and provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors and to the staff of the Department of Public Works. Santa Margarita has a population of approximately 1,400 and covers an area of approximately 300 acres. CSA 23 supplies the community with water via two groundwater wells located within the boundaries of the community. The community is completely reliant on groundwater for its supply. 2.2 Purpose and Need Purpose During periods of low seasonal rainfall, water levels in community wells typically drop, triggering various voluntary conservation methods. During the drought that occurred in 1987-1992, the main community well (#4) experienced ground water levels that dropped to critically low levels. Extraordinary conservation methods, combined with a highly unusual late season rain event (The 1991 “Miracle March”) combined to carry the community through the drought. Since that time, an additional water supply well (#3) has been developed; however, in the event of the loss of well #4, well #3 may not be capable of carrying the community through a drought. Therefore, although an additional well has been added since the 1987-1992 drought, the well does not fill the role of an emergency drought supply because no predictions about its reliability can be made. The purpose of this project is to provide existing residents of the community with a more reliable water supply in periods of significant drought. In the event of a drought period equal to or more severe than recorded events current residents may be forced to reduce water use below levels considered reasonable from a health and safety perspective. Further, the reliance on essentially a single supply



source (groundwater) within a limited geographic area may be placing the community in a tenuous public health and safety position. Need 1. Santa Margarita relies on a single source, groundwater, located beneath the community. The majority of the groundwater supply is provided by water bearing sediments that extend from the surface to a depth of 50 feet, below which there are no water bearing strata. This source is tapped by a single well (Well #4) which was developed to respond to water quality issues raised by the State of California with respect to wells #1 and #2, both of which have been shut down. In successive drought years groundwater levels drop to precarious levels, raising the question of how to supply water for basic health and safety needs in the event groundwater becomes unavailable. Well #4 provides approximately 70-75% of the community’s water supply. 2. Well #3, drilled in 1991 into bedrock, may not be capable of providing a sufficient water supply volume if the primary supply from well #4 is unavailable. Well #3 is drilled in the Santa Margarita formation, which is bedrock composed mostly of sandstone. Groundwater can flow through pore spaces in sandstone, and through fractures in the bedrock formation, in order to supply groundwater to wells. However, it is not possible to predict with certainty how the formation will respond to drought conditions, increased pumping, or to influences from other wells drilled into the same formation. Consequently, well #3 is not considered a reliable source for the purposes of drought period planning. 3. The primary water supply used by CSA 23 may also be impacted by other users, or potential users, of that supply. According to groundwater studies completed for the Santa Margarita Ranch development, groundwater levels have declined in the area east of the community. Therefore, these recent activities on the surrounding Santa Margarita Ranch have raised the question of whether increased pumping by the Ranch might lead to a depletion of the supply currently utilized by CSA 23. 4. Santa Margarita’s water supply system historically has not complied with the California Department of Public Health’s requirements in Title 22, section 64554 of the California Code of Regulations, which states:

(a) At all times, a public water system's water source(s) shall have the capacity to meet the system's maximum day demand (MDD). (c) Community water systems using only groundwater shall have a minimum of two approved sources before being granted an initial permit. The system shall be capable of meeting MDD with the highest-capacity source off line.



Non-compliance with State regulations exists because in the event that main well (#4) shuts down due to low water levels, water quality issues or mechanical issues, the back-up well (#3) does not have sufficient capability to meet community needs during the highest use period in the summer. 2.3 Community Water Demand The Santa Margarita Water System currently serves 532 meters serving approximately 1,400 people (2008 estimate) which includes residences, businesses and multi-family units (Figure 2-3). Based on water consumption since 2000, the community uses on average about 175 acre feet of water each year (Exhibit 2-1 below). Each acre foot is equal to 325,851 gallons. The average daily consumption per person is about 118 gallons. Of that amount, about 70 gallons are used indoors daily per person (GPCD), and about 48 gallons are used outdoors per person. These per person or “per capita” amounts are averages throughout the community, so some individuals use more, and others use less.

Exhibit 2-1

CS23 Historical Water Consumption

CSA 23 Historical Water Consumption1999 to 2009

186 186180

187

167175

170

161164

174

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

FY 99/00 FY 00/01 FY 01/02 FY 02/03 FY03/04 FY 04/05 FY 05/06 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09

Fiscal Year (FY)

Wat

er C

on

su

mp

tio

n (

AF

)

Although indoor water use tends to be relatively consistent throughout any year, outdoor water usage increases total consumption in the dry months. In the vast majority of years, the groundwater wells are adequate to meet the community’s demand, even during hot summer months when the usage is the greatest for



landscaping and other outdoor usage such as gardens. Exhibit 2-2 below illustrates the difference in water consumption during wet (rainy season) periods versus dry (non-rainy season) periods, with each covering a two month billing period.

Exhibit 2-2 CSA23 Monthly Water Consumption

CSA 23 2009 Monthly Water ConsumptionTotal Annual Consumption = 154 AF

18

40

31

17

33

15

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

February April June August October December

2009

Wat

er C

on

sum

pti

on

(A

F)

One of the more severe droughts on record in Santa Margarita occurred from 1987-1992. On March 5, 1991, after 5 years of significant drought, the water levels in the community wells had dropped to record low levels. The community at that time had only two wells, both of which tapped into the same aquifer, the Santa Margarita Creek alluvium. The Board of Supervisors declared a water supply emergency establishing severe restrictions on water use (mandatory water conservation measures). The emergency declaration prohibited all outdoor water usage and included adoption of a County Ordinance (#2496) with penalties for anyone that violated the emergency requirements. Fortunately, the “Miracle March rains” of 1991 resulted in 18.94 inches of rainfall in Santa Margarita during the month. Water levels in the Santa Margarita creek alluvium recovered and the emergency requirements were repealed in 1992. It is apparent that a more severe water supply emergency was averted only because of the unprecedented late season rains.



2.4 Project Location The community of Santa Margarita (CSA 23) is located in north-central San Luis Obispo County. The community is bisected by State Highway 58, approximately two miles east of its junction with State Highway 101 (See Figure 2-1). The community can also be located on the United States Geological Survey’s Santa Margarita Quadrangle Map. 2.5 Project Partners The proposed project requires the participation of one or more project partners, that is, one or more State Water participants who will work with CSA 23 to be the trading partner that will, in normal years, use the five acre foot allocation and, in drought years, reduce their State Water use by 85 acre feet and direct that water to CSA 23. No partners have been identified at this time, partly because the project itself has not yet been reviewed or approved by the involved governing bodies (County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District). These two entities, in turn, cannot act unless and until the project complies with CEQA, hence the preparation and circulation of this SEIR. Once the project is endorsed by the two governing bodies, and the requirements of CEQA are met, CSA 23 can begin negotiations with potential partners. Agencies that may join the project include those listed as existing State Water participants in tables 2-13 and 2-24 in this chapter, along with both the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Central Coast Water Authority, as both entities hold unallocated reserves in excess of 85 acre feet that could be used in partnership with CSA 23. Also, depending on where the project partner(s) are located, negotiations between the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Central Coast Water Authority regarding pipeline capacity may need to occur before the project can be implemented. Because potential environmental impacts associated with a project partner’s participation are not, and cannot be known at this time, additional review pursuant to CEQA may be required when a partner is identified, and before any irretrievable commitment of resources (water) is made by the County of San Luis Obispo on behalf of CSA 23. Depending on the severity of potential effects that additional environmental review may consist of an Addendum to this SEIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, a Supplement to this SEIR pursuant to section 15163, or a Subsequent EIR pursuant to section 15162. When project partner’s are identified, it is likely they would fall into one of several categories, about which some observations can be made. Of the agencies shown in tables 2-3 and 2-4 below, only those with an allocation of at least 75 acre feet of water would be eligible to participate as the agency would need to provide up to 80 acre feet to CSA 23 in a single very dry year (5 acre feet of CSA-23’s allocation plus 75 from the partner agency). However, it is possible that an



existing State Water contractor could increase its allocation in order to partner with CSA 23. Only one agency, CSA-16 (Shandon) is “upstream” of CSA-23. If Shandon were to partner with CSA-23, Shandon would reduce groundwater pumping by 5 acre feet per year until CSA-23 needed additional supplies; in the event of a drought State Water would flow to Santa Margarita and Shandon would make up the difference by pumping and using additional groundwater.1 The Oceano Community Services District and the City of Pismo Beach and also participate in the Lopez Lake Project. Each agency could participate in a similar fashion as Shandon, but would use Lopez Lake for “storage”. However, such an arrangement would also require the agreement of other Lopez Project participants. In Santa Barbara County, some agencies (such as the City of Santa Maria) also utilize groundwater, and might participate in the same manner as Shandon. Those cities located south of Cachuma Lake could participate in the same manner as Oceano or Pismo Beach by utilizing Cachuma Lake for storage. San Luis Obispo County itself may also have the ability to partner with CSA-23 by utilizing a portion of State Water allocated to the County Operations Center (near Camp San Luis Obispo) but not currently fully utilized. In this instance, CSA-23 might simply purchase drought supply water from the County. As can be seen from this discussion, there are many variations on how CSA-23 might partner with another State Water contractor. Once a partner or partners are identified, and before any irretrievable commitment of resources is made, additional review pursuant to CEQA may be required. 2.6 State Water Project Background Information In 1992, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors approved delivery of State Water to eleven entities, for a total of 4,830 afy of water. Although San Luis Obispo County retains an excess entitlement (unsubscribed portion) of 16,553 acre feet (af), the pipeline was sized to deliver 4,830 afy of treated water to purveyors in San Luis Obispo County. Additional work to refine estimates of available pipeline capacity in various segments of the State Water pipeline is underway, however, current estimates from the Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) show no more than 7% of additional capacity or approximately 340 afy would be available beyond the 4,830 afy of State Water designated for San Luis Obispo County. Coastal Branch State Water contractors and their entitlements are shown in Exhibits 2-3 and 2-4. In January, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors adopted new policies for sale or transfer of any portion of the County's excess entitlement with the understanding there will be no permanent sales outside the County. Based on

1 In January 2011 CSA-16 (Shandon) indicated a desire to rescind an earlier decision to sell their State Water allocation. It is not known at this time how, or even if, CSA-16 would partner with CSA-23.



the definition that the State Water Project "Excess Entitlement" is the portion of the total entitlement that is not contracted to others for their deliverable or drought buffer uses, the priority of use will be as follows:

1. Prior to transferring the excess entitlement for any other use, contractors of state water entitlement with capacity in Phase II of the Coastal Aqueduct shall have the first right to utilize the excess entitlement for "drought buffer" (reliability) purposes under the terms of a drought buffer agreement.

2. Preference shall be given to local agencies and water purveyors

regardless of whether a transfer is on an annual, multi-year, or a permanent basis.

3. No permanent transfer of the excess entitlement for use outside District

boundaries shall be made prior to a final update of the District's Master Water Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and then only if the transfer is consistent with the then adopted Master Plan (see item #7).

4. No multi-year transfers for use outside District boundaries shall be made

with a term in excess of five years prior to a final update to the District's Master Water Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and then out of District transfers can only take place if the transfer is consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

5. On any out-of-District transfer, preference shall be given to those that

provide: a) revenues that recover current costs and some or all of the District's past costs, b) maintain the District's right to use the water in the future, or c) which are used for environmental mitigation.

6. The Public Works Director is authorized to determine the annual amount

of the excess entitlement to transfer to the SWP "Turn back Pools" established under the existing terms of State Water Agreements. In making that determination, the Public Works Director shall first consider local needs and how the use of the Turn back Pool might impact other potential transfers.

7. The above policies were adopted by the Board of Supervisors with the

understanding that there will be no permanent sales outside the District.

Existing State Water contractors along the coastal branch are shown in the following two tables:



Exhibit 2-3 Status of State Water in San Luis Obispo County

Contractor Deliverable Entitlement

Drought Buffer

Total

City of Morro Bay 1,313 2,290 3,603

City of Pismo Beach 1,240 1,240 2,480

Oceano CSD 750 0 750

County Operation Center 425 425 850

California Men’s Colony 400 400 800

San Miguelito Mutual Water Company 275 275 550

Cuesta College 200 200 400

Avila Beach CSD 100 0 100

Shandon 100 0 100

Avila Valley Mutual Water Company 20 60 80

San Luis Coastal Unified School District 7 7 14

Total Subscribed 4,830 4,897 9,727

San Luis Obispo County Unallocated 15,273

Total 25,000



Exhibit 2-4

Status of State Water in Santa Barbara County

Contractor Deliverable Entitlement

Drought Buffer

Total

Cal Cities Water Company 500 0 500

Carpinteria Valley Water District 2,000 0 2,000

City of Buellton 578 0 578

City of Guadalupe 550 0 550

City of Santa Barbara 3,000 0 3,000

City of Santa Maria 16,200 0 16,200

City of Solvang 1,500 0 1,500

Goleta Water District 4,500 2,950 7,450

La Cumbre Mutual Water Company 1,000 0 1,000

Montecito Water District 3,000 0 3,000

Morehart Land Company 200 0 200

Raytheon Infrared Operations 50 0 50

Santa Ynez River Water Cons. District 500 0 500

Vandenberg Air Force base 5,500 0 5,500

Total Subscribed 39,078 2,950 42,028

Santa Barbara County Unallocated 3,458

Total 45,486

2.7 Reliability of the State Water Project Reliability is defined as the ability of a water project to deliver water over an extended period of time. It may be acceptable for one component of a water purveyor's future water supply to have a reduced reliability, if the total water supply, consisting of two or more water sources, can make up for deficiencies in another water source during critical droughts. Traditionally the reliability of the State Water Project was calculated based upon the following four factors: annual rainfall in northern California and snow levels in the Sierra

Mountain ranges; the amount of water that will be allowed to be diverted from the

Sacramento Delta for urban and agricultural use while preserving the environment for protected species;

increased demands on the SWP from contractors; and



the ability to construct new facilities designed to increase the yield of the SWP.

With the most recent reliability report (2009) the State has also considered the following refined and additional factors in estimating the reliability of State Water: Restrictions on SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations in

accordance with the biological opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued on Dec. 15, 2008 and June 4, 2009, respectively

The vulnerability of the delta levees to failure

Potential changes in hydrology due to climate change projections and sea

level rise Historically the SWP has delivered between 20% (during the driest year on record, 1977) to 100% full entitlement. According to the 2009 draft of the SWP Delivery Reliability Report, on average projected to the year 2029, the State can deliver 61% of entitlement requests when the project is at maximum demand. The estimated range of probable deliveries is 10% to 100%. The most recent SWP Delivery Reliability Report can be viewed at:

http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/swpreliability/ As shown in Ehibits 2-3 and 2-4, in order to improve the reliability of State Water delivery schedules during times of drought, water purveyors choose to double or otherwise increase their initial requests. This means, for example, that if the County Operations Center can expect to receive approximately half of its entitlement due to reductions imposed by DWR, by doubling its entitlement it could receive its full 425 afy during drought periods. These supplemental requests do not affect the maximum capacity of the pipeline because no more than the initial request would be received in times of drought, at which time there would be excess capacity in the Coastal Branch pipeline due to general reductions in DWR water subscriptions. Consequently, the project includes an allocation above the proposed 5 afy, in the form of a drought buffer. To ensure that the annual allocation of five acre feet per year for CSA 23 in the State Water Project is generally available, a 5 afy drought buffer is included.



2.8 Discretionary Actions Required Depending on the alternative selected, a range of discretionary actions by a number of local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Exhibit 2-5 summarizes these various actions, by alternative. As the project proponent, CSA-23 has the responsibility to ensure compliance with all applicable permits and regulations. As the governing body for CSA 23, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is charged with making the determination as to when, how, and in what form the project will move forward. Also, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, the Board of Supervisors has the responsibility to ensure that the environmental documentation for the project complies with the requirements of CEQA. All of the alternatives except for the water conservation and “no project” alternatives require the construction and operation of various levels of new infrastructure. As a public agency, CSA 23 has specific privileges reserved for public projects in the State Subdivision Map Act and local codes. Government Code Section 65402 requires county and city planning agencies to make findings on whether certain proposed public projects would be consistent with their respective adopted general plan and zoning of a specific location using the "conformity report" procedure. California Government Code Section (G.C.) 53091 provides that county or city building and zoning ordinances shall not apply to the location or construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, or transmission of water by a local agency. Therefore, county grading permits would not be required for infrastructure improvements. Where construction includes a pipeline within County and State road right-of-ways, no land use or grading permits for the project would be required. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has jurisdiction in the State Highway right-of-way. Where streambeds, wetlands, or areas with riparian vegetation are crossed, Streambed Alteration Agreements may be required from the California Department of Fish and Game. In addition, these areas may require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, and from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board under section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act. Connection to the State Water Project would require approvals from the State Department of Water Resources.



Exhibit 2-5 Summary of Permit Requirements

Alternative

Nacimiento Water Project

Permit/Authorization

Permit Agency S

tate

Wat

er

Co

nn

ecti

on

Wat

er

Co

nse

rvat

ion

Op

tio

n A

Op

tio

n B

Op

tio

n C

Ad

dit

ion

al

Wel

ls

No

Pro

ject

Authority to Construct Air Pollution Control District

X X

Construction Storm Water Permit

State Water Resources Control Board

X X

Grading Permit SLO County Planning Department

Water Entitlement State Department of Water Resources

X

SLO County General Plan Conformity Report

SLO County X X

Streambed Alteration Agreement

California Department of Fish and Game

X X

Clean Water Act Section 401

Regional Water Quality Control Board

X X

Road Encroachment Permit

Caltrans X X

Notes: 1. The Nacimiento Water Project options A & C are the only alternatives likely to reach APCD permit thresholds.

2.9 Evolving Water Reliability Strategies Since 1991, the County Department of Public Works has been working on alternatives to improve water reliability, just as cities and other water agencies constantly evaluate water resource planning and management issues for their water systems. Several reports and presentations have been prepared, and the Department’s approach to analyzing the situation has changed over the years from a focus on supplemental water to a focus on drought reliability based, in part, on feedback from the community, especially the CSA 23 Advisory Group.




The following generally describes each term: Supplemental Water can be described as an additional source of water that is available every year in a quantity that could provide water for any purpose such as meeting build out demands and/or providing water during drought conditions. Supplemental water generally costs more than drought reliability water because it is available each year. Drought Reliability Water refers to the water needs of the community during periods of less than average rainfall. Typically this quantity of water is only needed periodically and is obtained and used only when needed. The amount of water needed is different for every community based on several factors, including how much the community is willing to conserve. The current project is intended to focus on drought reliability - making sure that additional water is available during drought conditions. Drought reliability programs are also a new emphasis in the Countywide Master Water Plan under preparation by the Department of Public Works. For additional information on Countywide, or regional efforts, please visit the County Department of Public Works’ website at http://www.slocountywater.org.

DelNorte

Siskiyou Modoc

Humboldt Trinity ShastaLassen

TehamaPlumas

ButteMendocinoGlenn Sierra

YubaLakeNevada

ColusaSutter Placer

ElDoradoYolo

AlpineSonoma Napa Sacramento

Mono

AmadorSolano

CalaverasTuolumneMarin San

JoaquinContraCosta

Stanislaus

SanFrancisco Alameda

Mariposa

Madera

SanMateo

Merced

Fresno

SantaClara

Inyo

SantaCruz

SanBenito

MontereyTulare

Kings

SanBernardino

Kern

SantaBarbara

Ventura LosAngeles

RiversideOrange

ImperialSanDiego

P a c i f i c O

c e a n³0 50 10025

Miles

Legend^ Project Area

San Luis Obispo County

Other Counties


FIGURE 2-1Location Map

^

CITY OF ATASCADERO

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

£¤101

|ÿ229

|ÿ58

|ÿ41

|ÿ1 ³0 0.9 1.80.45

Miles


FIGURE 2-2Vicinity Map

CSA 23 Boundary

RRR

R

R

WaterStorageTanks

Marg

arita

Ave

Yerba

Buen

a Ave

Maria A ve

Mur p

hy A v

e

Pina l

Ave

Encin

a Ave

K St

G St

H St

I St

F St

J St

Helena Ave

I St

Doroth

y Ln

Wilhe

lmina

Ave

El Camino

Real

|ÿ58

|ÿ58|ÿ58


FIGURE 2-3County Service Area 23 Map

µ0 400 800200

Feet

LegendR Wells

Water Tanks

CSA 23 Boundary

"

City ofMorro Bay

CaliforniaMen's

ColonyCuestaCollege

San LuisCoastal

Unified SchoolDistrict

Shandon

City ofPismoBeach

OceanoCSD

Avila BeachCSD

City ofBuellton City of

Solvang

SantaYnez River

Water ConservationDistrict

VandenbergAir Force

Base

City ofSantaMaria

City ofSanta

Barbara

GoletaWater

District CarpinteriaValley Water

DistrictMontecito

WaterDistrict

La CumbreMutualWater

Company

CountyOperations

Center

SanMiguelito

MutualWater Company

Avila ValleyMutualWater

Company

CalCitiesWater

Company

MorehartLand

Company

RaytheonInfrared

Operations

UV101

UV58

UV246

UV101

UV119

UV46

UV154

UV229

UV166

UV33

UV46

UV41

UV1

UV5

UV33

P a c i f i c O c e a n

WaterTreatment

Plant

Lopez Lake

Soda Lake

Lake Nacimiento

Santa Margarita Lake

Lake San Antonio

Cachuma Lake

³0 6 123

Miles

LegendLocal Water Distribution Line

California Aquaduct

State Water Pipeline Coastal Branch


FIGURE 2-4 State Water CoastalBranch Participants Map

FIGURE 2-5

Proposed Project Site Plan San Luis Obispo County Service Area #23


3.0 Alternatives

3.0 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 Alternatives Selection Background Information This section provides background information pertaining to project alternatives and policies that would influence the consideration of alternatives. 3.1.1 Relationship to the Project Purpose and Need Consistent with county-wide water management objectives, the objective of the proposed project is to provide existing residents of the community with a more reliable water supply in periods of continued drought. Consequently, the consideration of alternatives is based on identifying alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objective of the project. 3.1.2 CEQA Alternatives Analysis Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15126.6, requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to the location of a project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This section discusses a range of alternatives to the proposed project including a "No Project" alternative. Criteria used to evaluate the range of alternatives and remove certain alternatives from further consideration are addressed. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 also provides direction for the discussion of alternatives to the proposed project. This section requires:

A description of "...a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." [15126.6(a)]

A setting forth of alternatives that "...shall be limited to ones that would

avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." [15126.6(f)]

A discussion of the "No Project" alternative, and "...if the environmentally

superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." [15126.6(e)(2)]


3.0 Alternatives

This document has used an alternative screening analysis to limit the number of alternatives evaluated in detail throughout the SEIR. The use of an alternative screening analysis assures that only feasible alternatives are evaluated and compared in the SEIR. This screening methodology also uses the "rule of reason" approach to alternatives as discussed in CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6(f). The rule of reason approach has been defined to require that EIRs address a range of feasible alternatives that have the potential to diminish or avoid adverse environmental impacts. The CEQA Guidelines state:

"The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." (Section 15126.6(f)

In defining feasibility of alternatives the CEQA Guidelines state:

"Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are 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." (Section 15126.6(f) (1)

If an alternative was found to be technically infeasible, then it was dropped from further consideration. This was the primary feasibility factor that was used to eliminate an alternative without further analysis. In addition, CEQA states that alternatives should "...attain most of the basic objectives of the project ..." (Section 15126.6(a). If an alternative is found to not obtain the basic objectives, then it was also eliminated. The use of a screening analysis for the alternatives ensures that the full spectrum of environmental concerns is adequately represented, and that a reasonable choice of alternatives is selected for further evaluation throughout the EIR.


3.0 Alternatives

3.1.3 Alternatives Considered but Rejected The following alternatives were removed from consideration for various reasons, as discussed below: Enlargement of the Salinas Dam This alternative consisted of joining the City of San Luis Obispo’s Salinas Dam project to increase the yield of Santa Margarita Lake with Santa Margarita’s portion of the water either treated at a new water treatment plant or released into surface streams to recharge the groundwater basin. The project involves the installation of flood gates (per the original project design from 1942) on the Salinas Dam to raise the water level of Santa Margarita Lake by approximately 19 feet. The additional capacity would be used to serve the City of San Luis Obispo, which currently receives water from Santa Margarita Lake via a pipeline and pumping facilities operated by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The water is treated at the City of San Luis Obispo’s water treatment facility located on Chorro Creek, south of the Cuesta grade. Under this alterative, CSA 23 would contract for a portion of the additional supply (assuming the City was amenable) and deliver it to the community either by building a water treatment plant and pipeline, or by constructing facilities to release the water into area groundwater basins, and then recovering the water via new or existing wells. The Santa Margarita Lake expansion project was the subject of substantial debate regarding its environmental effects and feasibility when compared to the Nacimiento Water Project. As the Nacimiento Project development process proceeded, the feasibility of the Santa Margarita expansion project decreased. When the City of San Luis Obispo formally joined the Nacimiento Project in July of 2004, the Santa Margarita Lake Expansion project was essentially shelved. While expansion of the reservoir is theoretically still possible, the costs to CSA 23 to proceed would be substantial. Further, because no formal discussions with the City have been initiated, additional questions regarding potential issues with the use of the water have not been answered. The draft EIR prepared for the Santa Margarita Lake expansion project identified the loss of several thousand oak trees and habitat as a significant issue; an issue that generated substantial debate in the community. With the development of the Nacimiento Project, the environmental process for Santa Margarita Lake was placed on hold and acceptance of the project has not been established. Estimated costs for Santa Margarita Lake water, including a treatment plant but with partnering with the City of San Luis Obispo exceed $1,800 per acre foot.


3.0 Alternatives

Without the City’s participation in cost sharing, costs would far exceed this estimate. Given the known environmental issues, the current lack of a viable partner, and the high costs, water from Santa Margarita Lake was rejected as an alternative. Reclamation of Waste Water This alternative consisted of the installation of a wastewater collection and treatment system with a groundwater recharge component. The community of Santa Margarita currently disposes of wastewater through individual on-site septic systems. While the systems generally comply with Uniform Building Code requirements, few meet the minimum parcel size requirements established in the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan. This alternative would replace individual septic systems with a sewage collection system, centralized treatment plant, and disposal of the treated water through groundwater recharge. While this alternative could, in theory, help address wastewater issues along with water supply needs, the costs to the community would be substantial. Further, many of the existing septic systems in the community already help recharge groundwater supplies. While switching from septic system leach fields to a community wastewater project might improve water quality, it would bring no additional supplies into the groundwater system. Given that costs are undoubtedly high when compared to the limited potential water supply benefits this alternative was dropped from further consideration. Combining Service Areas with Atascadero Mutual Water Company This alternative involves combining service areas with nearby Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The concept would be to "annex" into the Water Company, a process that involves issuance of shares to Santa Margarita properties. Issuance of shares is overseen by the Ca. Dept. of Corporations. The Water Company delivers water to approximately 8,700 service connections, compared to CSA 23's approximate 500 service connections. The Water Company's service area extends to within 2.7 miles of the CSA 23 service area. An 8-inch diameter or larger intertie pipeline would be needed and potentially a pump station to convey adequate pressure and flow from the Water Company to Santa Margarita. Joining the Water Company service area would allow Santa Margarita residents to benefit from additional Salinas underflow and Paso Robles Ground Water Basin supplies. The Water Company is an active participant in the Nacimiento Project, as well as other regional water supply planning. Overall, improved reliability would be expected as a result of joining a water system with multiple sources of supply. Much of the strength in a mutual water company's water rights is that all shareholders deed their individual property's water rights to the


3.0 Alternatives

company. In order to be issued shares of the Water Company the individual property owners within CSA 23 would have to designate the Water Company as having authority to exercise their overlying water rights. Overall, the community water system's water rights position is strengthened, while an individual property's rights are diminished. Wells operated by the Water Company have similar water quality as CSA 23. Surface water influence and corrosivity, for example, are issues that the Water Company faces with existing wells. No change in water quality is expected. This alternative was rejected because it is not possible to join the Atascadero Mutual Water Company for drought reliability supplies while maintaining CSA 23 as a separate entity for “normal” supplies. Another approach might be to contract with the Water Company to provide drought period supplies or to partner with the Water Company through a method similar to that described in the proposed project, assuming an outside additional water allocation to CSA 23 that could be directed to the Water Company. However, both approaches face the same concern: the high probability that a severe drought affecting CSA 23 would also impact the Water Company, given the close proximity of the two systems. That is, the Water Company may not have the supplies necessary to assist CSA 23 during times of an area-wide drought. Of the remaining four alternatives (not including the “no project” alternative), connection to the State Water Project was initially judged to be the most efficient method of providing a supplemental water supply to the community of Santa Margarita. Therefore, the State Water alternative becomes the “proposed project” while conservation, connection to the Nacimiento Project, and groundwater are evaluated as alternatives, together with the CEQA required analysis of the “no project” alternative. 3.2 No Project Alternative CEQA requires that the specific alternative of the "No Project" be evaluated along with its impacts as part of the EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). As such, the No Project Alternative was not subject to the screening analysis and has been evaluated as an alternative to the proposed project throughout this SEIR. Without the project the community would continue to depend on existing groundwater supplies during drought periods. The potential environmental effects of selecting the no project alternative are addressed in each of the following SEIR chapters.


3.0 Alternatives

3.3 Water Conservation Alternative This alternative consists of the implementation of a comprehensive water conservation program consisting of two primary parts. The first part, or “base” program, would be implemented at the earliest opportunity and would be effective at all times, regardless of the status of the groundwater (or other) supply. The second or “drought” part would go into effect when triggered by shortages or potential shortages in the water supply that occur either as a result of prolonged drought or other events that reduce the available water. One key goal of the water conservation program would be to reduce indoor water use to below 50 gallons per capita per day (GPCD). Typical program elements for indoor water use reductions include:

a) Mandatory retrofit of all toilets to ultra-low flow (ULF) b) Plumbing retrofit of existing indoor facilities (showers and faucets) c) Ordinance(s) requiring retrofit on resale or construction permit issuance d) Ordinances ensuring new building indoor water efficiency e) Establish a rebate program to convert to high efficiency appliances

(washing machines) f) Tiered water rate structure to encourage water conservation g) Public Education.

Each of the above steps (a-g) are also typical elements of a “base” program, that is, the part of the program that is fully effective at all times. Typical outdoor water use reduction measures included as part of the “base” conservation program are:

a) Ordinances limiting the amount of high water use landscape materials (turf)

b) Landscape irrigation ordinances prohibiting the runoff of irrigation water and prescribing water times

c) Ordinances prohibiting the general “waste” of water (washing down driveways and streets, allowing hoses to run into street gutters and drainage ditches, etc.)

d) Public Education Drought period conservation measures typically include ordinances prohibiting:

a) All outdoor irrigation b) Car, boat, RV, etc. washing c) Export of water from the community, and d) Active patrol and enforcement of these measures


3.0 Alternatives

Full implementation of a water conservation program typically takes a number of years given the program implementation costs. However, in the event of a water supply shortage, those elements of the program that prohibit certain outdoor water uses could be implemented immediately. As noted above, costs typically determine the implementation timing of a water conservation program. If increases in water rates are used as a method to develop water conservation program funding, then a public process is required. Any proposal to increase water bills in the future to help pay for water conservation measures is dependent on several factors including the effectiveness of voluntary conservation measures and whether it becomes necessary to implement mandatory conservation to respond to a severe drought. 3.4 Nacimiento Water Project Alternative The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, in conjunction with various stakeholders and five local entities representing the communities of Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton, San Luis Obispo, and County Service Area No. 10, Benefit Zone A is implementing the Nacimiento Water Project (NWP). County Service Area 10A (a portion of the community of Cayucos) is a project participant through an exchange agreement with the City of San Luis Obispo involving Whale Rock Reservoir. The project is a regional raw water transmission facility that will deliver water from Lake Nacimiento to communities within San Luis Obispo County. The project involves the development of an intake and pump station at Lake Nacimiento, approximately 45 miles of transmission pipeline ranging in size from 36 to 12 inches in diameter, three storage tanks, two intermediate pump stations, turnouts, control center, new Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and Project control system, and associated appurtenant facilities (See Figure 3-1, Nacimiento Water Project). The main objective of the NWP is to provide a reliable supplemental water source for a variety of uses within San Luis Obispo County by supplementing the local ground and surface water supplies with a new surface water source. The objectives also include an increase in the reliability of water deliveries, improved water quality, and the lessening of the extent of future ground water pumping. The overall objective of the proposed project is, therefore, to ensure better management of water resources throughout the County. The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has a 17,500 acre feet per year entitlement from Lake Nacimiento per agreement executed in 1959 with Monterey County. Of this 17,500 acre feet per year, 15,750 acre feet per year is slated for the NWP with the remaining 1,750 acre feet per year is being reserved for local lakeside use.


3.0 Alternatives

As noted above, there are currently five project participants. Exhibit 3-1 shows each purveyor allocation and the unallocated reserve.

Exhibit 3-1 Nacimiento Water Project Allocations 2010

Allocation Water Purveyor

Afy City of Paso Robles 4,000 Templeton CSD 250 Atascadero MWC 3,000 City of San Luis Obispo 3,380 CSA 10A - Cayucos 80

Subtotal 10,710 Reserved for Lakeside Use 1,300

Unallocated Reserve 5.490 Total Allocation 17,500

As evaluated in the project EIR, the Nacimiento Water Project included two co-equal water delivery options: Treated Water Option and Raw Water Option. With the EIR certification and initial project approval on January 6, 2004 the Board of Supervisors selected the raw water option. Therefore, the water treatment facilities were not constructed as part of the project. Reliability of the Nacimiento Water Project Reliability of the NWP is generally dependent on the following four factors:

Annual rainfall and runoff received into the lake from the Lake Nacimiento watershed

Operation model used by the Monterey County Water Resources Agency

to manage Nacimiento Reservoir, sustain releases required by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service, and make releases for groundwater recharge in the Salinas Valley to mitigate seawater intrusion

The amount of water which can safely be retained in Lake Nacimiento as

determined by the California Division of Safety of Dams and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) requirements

The ability to construct future improvements to the Nacimiento Dam

spillway, or other improvements designed to maximize the volume of water that can be retained in storage

Boyle Engineering Corporation examined the issue of reliability using data from 1951 to 1991 on storage, inflow, net evaporation, conservation and flood protection releases. Below normal inflow patterns during this 40- year period occurred regularly in three year cycles. Boyle Engineering Corporation (Boyle)


3.0 Alternatives

concluded that the Nacimiento Reservoir from October 1950 through September 1991 would have been capable of delivering 17,500 acre feet per year to the San Luis Obispo Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOFCWCD) during historic cycles of below-average inflow. However, during periods of sustained drought, beginning in December 1990 (the fifth year of drought), the operations model indicated that Lake Nacimiento would have reached the minimum pool of 10,000 acre feet, which would have reduced theoretical deliveries of NWP until March 1991, when substantial rainfall was received (Boyle 1992). Estimated potential yields for the NWP range from a low of 90% during the 1987-1992 drought to 100% full subscriptions. On the average, NWP will deliver 99% of subscriptions, including both wet and dry years (Boyle 1992, 1997). In October of 2002 Boyle updated the reliability assessment. As part of that assessment Boyle modeled the impact the Nacimiento Water Project would have had on historic lake levels if 16,200 acre feet per year of their 17,500 entitlement was delivered to San Luis Obispo County, according to a seasonally adjusted delivery schedule. It was assumed that Monterey County Water Resources Agency (MCWRA) would modify their annual release schedule (MCWRA typically releases over 230,000 acre feet per year from the Nacimiento Reservoir) in such a way as to ensure the availability of San Luis Obispo County's annual entitlement of 17,500 acre feet per year. Boyle examined reservoir storage, elevation, inflow, and outflow data from 1958 to 2001 and concluded the following:

Short Term Drought (1-2 years): During such periods the Nacimiento Reservoir would have never fallen into dead pool, and Nacimiento water deliveries could have been reliably delivered without modification to the delivery schedule.

Long Term Drought - There would have been 4 occurrences in the 43-year

study period where it would have been necessary to modify the Nacimiento water delivery schedule to prevent dead pool lake levels. However, utilizing a modified delivery schedule the total annual delivery of 16,200 acre feet could have been delivered without reaching dead pool.

Therefore, the Nacimiento Water Project is considered 100% reliable. Options The Nacimiento Water Project Alternative consists of three options. Under each option the community would address its water supply needs during a drought through a connection to the Nacimiento Water Project. The allocation amount would remain the same for each (five acre feet), the same as the proposed project. Participants in the exchange program would be limited to other existing or potential participants in the Nacimiento Project. Because the Nacimiento Project provides raw (un-treated) water, unlike the State Water Project which


3.0 Alternatives

provides treated water, each of the three options is designed to result in a water supply that meets drinking water standards:

Option A: Connect to the NWP via a new pipeline connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) (See Figure 3-2, AMWC Pipeline Alignment). During water supply emergencies, as declared by the County Board of Supervisors, AMWC would, for some level of consideration, provide treated water to Santa Margarita through its system. During normal years, no water would flow to Santa Margarita through Atascadero’s system.

Option B: Establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch

using NWP supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take NWP water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch.

Option C: Connect the NWP directly to the community’s water system via

a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. Costs of this alternative are substantially greater due to the cost of the treatment plant.

3.5 Groundwater Alternatives Under these alternatives the community would continue to rely on local groundwater resources to develop drought reliability. Reliability would be established either by accessing additional groundwater outside of the areas currently utilized for ongoing municipal supplies, either within or outside the boundaries of the community, or by enhancing the use of existing groundwater sources. The two overall approaches presented by this alternative follow the two existing groundwater sources currently used by the community: deep well, as in well number 3, or creek alluvium as in well number 4 (See Figure 3-3, CSA 23 Map). Therefore, the options within the groundwater alternative are:

Option A: New deep well near well #3. Development of a new well could provide drought reliability water depending on the quantity of water the well could produce and a suitable location.

Option B: Santa Margarita Elementary School Well. The school well is

also a deep well in the same formation as well #3 and currently


3.0 Alternatives


provides landscaping irrigation. Development of a new well on the school property would be required since the school’s existing well was not developed as a drinking water supply. An agreement with the school would be necessary to determine how the groundwater is shared during droughts and possible cost impacts if the school’s landscaping is impacted as a result of the community’s use of the water during a drought.

Option C: New Alluvial Well. This option involves the development of a

new well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community, along with any necessary easements and water agreements.

FIGURE 3-1

Nacimiento Water Project Map San Luis Obispo County Service Area #23


! !

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!

!!

!!

!!

!!

!!

CONNECTION TOATASCADERO WATER LINE

WATERLINE TOSANTA MARGARITA

CONNECT TO TOWNWATER SYSTEM

J St

Oak

Rd

Encina

Ave

North Forty Rd

F St H St

Harvest Wy

I St

Carmel R

d

Walnut

Ave

Santa Margarita Rd

El Camino Real

|ÿ58

£¤101

³0 0.2 0.40.1

Miles

Legend! ! ! AMWC PIPELINE ALIGNMENT LOCATIONS

CSA23 BOUNDARY


FIGURE 3-2AMWC Pipeline Alignment Map

RRR

R

R

WaterStorageTanks

Marg

arita

Ave

Yerba

Buen

a Ave

Maria A ve

Mur p

hy A v

e

Pina l

Ave

Encin

a Ave

K St

G St

H St

I St

F St

J St

Helena Ave

I St

Doroth

y Ln

Wilhe

lmina

Ave

El Camino

Real

|ÿ58

|ÿ58|ÿ58


FIGURE 3-3County Service Area 23 Map

µ0 400 800200

Feet

LegendR Wells

Water Tanks

CSA 23 Boundary

4.0 Cumulative Projects Description

4.0 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS DESCRIPTION In Section 15355 of the CEQA guidelines, a "cumulative impact" is defined as two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are either considerable or compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impact information related to the proposed project is contained in four key documents:

Final EIR, State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II, CA Department of Water Resources, May 1991 [Chapter 8]

Final EIR, State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and

Facilities, County of San Luis Obispo, March 1992 (State Water EIR) [Section 6]

Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo,

December 2003 [Section 4.0] Final EIR, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Cluster Subdivision Project

and Future Development Program, County of San Luis Obispo, June 2008 A typical "project specific" cumulative analysis looks at the changes in the environment that result from the incremental impact of development of a proposed project and other reasonably foreseeable projects that have not been included in the environmental setting. For example, the traffic impacts of two projects in close proximity may prove to be insignificant when analyzed separately, but could be significant when the impacts of the projects are analyzed together. While these projects may be unrelated, their combined (i.e., cumulative) impacts are significant. These projects could include:

1. Funded public works projects 2. Reasonably foreseeable public works projects 3. Approved or proposed private development projects 4. Substantial land use changes in the project area

This chapter provides only a description of the cumulative projects. The impacts associated with these projects are discussed in Section 5.0, Analysis of Environmental Issues. 4.1 Cumulative Development Projects The potential impacts of the proposed project are generally limited to the region surrounding the community of Santa Margarita, which primarily coincides with the boundaries of the Santa Margarita Ranch. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the discussion of cumulative impacts to those activities that have, are, or are proposed to occur within or nearly adjacent to the area encompassed by the Ranch.




The proposed project consists of a pipeline approximately 65 feet long, together with supplying water through that pipeline to the community of Santa Margarita. The construction period is assumed to occur sometime in 2012 or 2013. A list (Exhibit 4-1) of all approved and pending projects located in the study area for the proposed project was assembled using information from the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building and the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works. The goal was to identify projects which were to be constructed in the vicinity of the proposed project, and that have the potential to affect the same resources impacted by the project. The cumulative projects’ locations are shown on Figure 4-1, the Cumulative Projects Map.


Exhibit 4-1 Cumulative Projects List

Project Name Status Schedule Brief Description

Public Projects

State Water Project, Coastal Branch Complete ------- Water supply pipeline from the State Water Project, through Santa Margarita to Santa Barbara County

Nacimiento Water Project Complete ------- Water supply pipeline from Nacimiento Reservoir, through Santa Margarita to San Luis Obispo

Santa Margarita Low Impact Development Complete ------- Bioswales, enhanced wetland, and bypass culvert in Santa Margarita

CSA23 Waterline Upgrade Complete ------- Upgrade waterlines in portions of Santa Margarita

CSA23 New Water Tank Complete ------- Replace 1 existing tank with a new tank

Private Projects

Santa Margarita Ranch Vineyard Developments On-going ------- Conversion of former grazing and farm lands to viticulture

Santa Margarita Ranch Lot Line Adjustment Complete ------- Adjustment of lot lines in north portion of Santa Margarita Ranch to cluster home site adjacent to Garden Farms. Development of individual home sites is on-going

Santa Margarita Ranch Cluster Subdivision Approved, not constructed

Under litigation

Agricultural cluster subdivision to create 112 residential parcels east of Santa Margarita on the Santa Margarita Ranch

Las Pilitas Quarry Under review 2013 New rock quarry east of Santa Margarita on Highway 58

Santa Margarita Ranch Subsequent Development Projected 2015+ Further development of portions Santa Margarita Ranch for, potentially, wineries, resort, golf course and additional residential uses


!

"""

"

"

£¤101

|ÿ58

|ÿ229

³0 0.5 10.25

Miles

Legend" Existing Wells within CSA 23 Boundary

! CSA 23 New Water Tank

State Water Pipeline, Coastal Branch


CSA 23 Boundary/CSA23 Waterline Upgrade

SM Low Impact Development

SMR Lot Line Adjustment

SMR Cluster Subdivision

Las Pilitas Quarry

SMR Vineyard Development

SMR Subsequent Development

US Highway 101

State Highways

SM = Santa Margarita

" SMR = Santa Margaritat Ranch


FIGURE 4-1Cumulative Projects Map

5.0 Analysis of Environmental Issues

5.0 ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES The March 1992 Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities Project (State Water EIR) evaluated 12 issue areas where significant impacts could occur. The 1992 evaluation considered the project as whole, together with potential effects in individual regions or communities. This SEIR examines each issue area with respect to establishment of a five-acre foot annual allocation of State Water to CSA 23, a five-acre foot drought buffer, and the implementation of a program to exchange water between CSA 23 and other State Water participants. For each issue area, the following sections are provided:

Environmental Setting

Regulatory Setting

Significance Criteria

Impacts and Mitigation Measures:

Proposed Project

Water Conservation


Option A

Option B

Option C

Groundwater

Option A

Option B

Option C

No Project

Cumulative Impacts

The impact analysis has been developed based on the information provided in Sections 1 through 4. All impacts in this document have been classified according to the following criteria: Class I - Significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated to insignificance: Significant impacts that cannot be effectively mitigated. Although some measures might reduce the level of impact, in the end no measures could be taken to avoid or reduce these adverse effects to insignificant or negligible levels.

5.0-1 CSA 23 Final SEIR 2011

5.0 Analysis of Environmental Issues


Class II - Significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant: These impacts are potentially similar in significance to those of Class I but can be reduced or avoided by the implementation of mitigation measures. Class III - Adverse but less than significant impacts: Generally, no mitigation measures are required for this Class of impacts. Class IV - Beneficial impacts: Effects that are beneficial to the environment. The term "significant" is used in the impact summary tables and throughout the SEIR to characterize the magnitude of the projected impact. For the purpose of this SEIR, a significant impact is a substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the local proposed project area or the area adjacent to the proposed project. In the discussion of each issue area, criteria used to distinguish between significant and insignificant impacts are provided. To the extent feasible, distinctions are also made between local and regional significance and short- versus long-term duration. Impacts and mitigation measures are systematically presented in tabular form in the Impact Summary Table, which is located directly following the Executive Summary.

5.1 Hydrology and Water Quality

5.1 HYDROLOGY and WATER QUALITY

This section addresses the effects of the project relative to surface and groundwater conditions in and around the community of Santa Margarita, including effects on water quality. These impacts are addressed on a regional scale in the State Water Project EIR. The majority of the discussion in the State Water EIR concerns the impacts of construction and operation of the water treatment plant, the pipeline, and distribution systems. Since the primary system is already built and in operation, these impacts have already occurred or are on-going with the operation of the system. The reader is referred to the State Water EIR for a discussion of these effects. This section will focus on the hydrology and water quality impacts that could occur with connection of Santa Margarita to the existing state water pipeline, as well as analyze the probable hydrologic and water quality effects of the project alternatives. Addressing concerns related to providing a secure long-term water supply for the community of Santa Margarita has been the focus of various reports and studies for over two decades. With the announcement of plans to develop major portions of the Santa Margarita Ranch, an approximate 14,000 acre property that surrounds the community of Santa Margarita, these concerns took on a new dimension. Issues related to potential impacts on the town’s water supply from new development, as well as the potential growth inducing effects of securing additional water were added to the discussion. Declining groundwater levels during drought periods combined with a growing population also raised concerns. In response, various efforts to examine and characterize the water supply situation were undertaken. For the most part, each report or study tends to review previous studies to verify its accuracy and assumptions, and then adds new and more detailed information based on more focused investigations, or additional data, or both. Therefore, this section of the SEIR presents information developed through numerous previous reports in a manner focused on the proposed drought reliability project. The Hydrology and Water Quality information related to the proposed project was developed from the following previous documents: Hopkins Groundwater Consultants Inc., June 2006, Preliminary Hydrogeological

Study, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision.

Todd Engineers, October 27, 2004, Technical memorandum Groundwater

Resources of CSA 23 – Santa Margarita. Boyle Engineering Corporation, April 2002, County of SLO Drinking Water

Source Assessment Santa Margarita Well No. 3. Boyle Engineering Corporation, October 2001, Santa Margarita Wells Watershed

Survey prepared for County of SLO.



Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 2001, County of SLO Drinking Water Source Assessment Santa Margarita Well No. 1, 2, and 4.

Cannon Associates, January 2000, County Service Area No. 23 – Santa

Margarita: Preliminary Review of Supplemental Water Supply Alternatives, prepared for County of SLO.

California Department of Health Services, February 10, 1998, SLO Waterworks

District No. 6, Santa Margarita, SLO 4010024 (Water Permit No. 04-06-98P-006).

McRae, Brian E., August 1994, A Hydrologic Inventory of Santa Margarita’s

Groundwater Basin, a Thesis in partial fulfillment of B.S. in Civil Engineering, California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Envicom Corporation, July 1993, Environmental Constraints and Opportunities

Analysis for the Santa Margarita Ranch. Luhdorff and Scalmanini, May 1992, Well Records for CSA 23 - Well 3. Mann, John F., September 16, 1987, Ground Water Resources of the Santa

Margarita Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, California. California Department of Health Services, December 18, 1986, Letter to SLO

Health Agency Director: Water Supply Facilities at CWWD No. 6. Wiese, John H., June 10, 1986, Letter to SLO County Engineering Department

(Mr. Hal Wilkinson): Proposed water well tests Santa Margarita. Wiese, John H., April 2, 1986, Letter to SLO County Engineering Department

(Ms. Ann Hall): Groundwater, Santa Margarita. Wiese, John H., March 16, 1986, Letter to SLO County Engineering Department

(Mr. Hal Wilkinson): Sources of groundwater in Santa Margarita area. Harry R. Feder, Consulting Geologist, September 19, 1985, Letter: Santa

Margarita Ranch Wells 8G-1, 9R-1 Recommendations to Mr. Wallace H. Campbell.

Harry R. Feder, Consulting Geologist, November 18, 1981, Letter: Santa

Margarita Ranch Ground Water to Nahama & Weagrant Energy Company. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc. (Robert C. Scott), June 1979,

Ground-Water Reconnaissance on the Santa Margarita Ranch West of Highway 101.



Hart, Earl W., 1976, Basic Geology of the Santa Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 199.

John Carollo Engineers, 1964, Waterworks Survey for SLO County Waterworks

District No. 6, Santa Margarita, California. California Department of Water Resources, May 1958, San Luis Obispo County

Investigation, Bulletin No. 18, Volume I: Text and Plates, Volume II Appendices.

The Hopkins study, written in 2006 and included in the Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision Project and Future Development Program Final Environmental Impact Report, is the most recent effort to comprehensively describe the groundwater supply in and around the community of Santa Margarita. However, the Hopkins study relied heavily on the 2004 Todd Memorandum. Because the Hopkins report and the 1993 Envicom Report were written specifically for use in Environmental Impact Reports (and therefore present their findings in plain language), these three reports provide the primary basis for the analysis included here. All are included as appendices B-1, B-2, and G of this SEIR. 5.1.1 Environmental Setting

Santa Margarita is located in the upper watersheds of two small tributaries to the Salinas River. Santa Margarita Creek (the larger of the two streams) drains the extreme western portion of the town while Yerba Buena Creek drains the eastern portion. Both intermittent creeks flow from south to north. Yerba Buena Creek flows into Santa Margarita Creek near the southern boundary of Garden Farms. Another much larger nearby watershed, Trout Creek, is east of the Yerba Buena watershed and outside of the town limits. Santa Margarita and Trout creeks join near the confluence with the Salinas River about three miles north of town. Both Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena creeks have been gauged for stream flow near the town. Twenty-one years of record are available for each gauge station, but discharge records for the streams coincide only between 1979 and 1985. The local topography in Santa Margarita is relatively flat with land surface elevations ranging from 1,000 to 1,020 feet above mean sea level (msl). Miller Flat, located upstream and southeast of town and drained by Yerba Buena Creek, has a relatively low and gentle topography, rising to 1,120 feet msl. The Yerba Buena Creek watershed attains an elevation of 2,228 feet msl near the headwaters of Sycamore Canyon, while the Santa Margarita Creek watershed reaches an elevation of 2,761 feet msl at Tassajera Peak. Average annual rainfall is between 25 and 30 inches.



Hydrogeology The town of Santa Margarita is located in the Nacimiento Fault Zone, which is a northwest trending thrust fault paralleling the San Andreas Fault. The northwest-trending strike-slip Rinconada Fault and the axis of the Santa Margarita Syncline are located east of the town. The area has been divided into eight geologic units. The geologic units, from oldest to youngest, are: Very Low Permeability: Franciscan mélange Toro Formation/Vaqueros Sandstone Low Permeability: Atascadero Formation Monterey Formation Santa Margarita Formation Paso Robles Formation High Permeability: Older Alluvium Younger Alluvium The relative permeability of the geologic units is based on hydraulic data summarized from consultant reports (Mann, 1987; Luhdorff and Scalmanini, 1992; McRae, 1994) and Department of Water Resources (DWR) Water Well Drillers Reports for the area. The alluvial aquifer is characterized by substantially higher permeability than bedrock formations, including the Santa Margarita Formation that is tapped by CSA 23’s well # 3. Because of the low permeability of bedrock formations, well yields are relatively low and achieved only with substantial drawdown. As a result, well #3 can provide only partial back-up and cannot replace the primary alluvial sources of water to CSA 23. The alluvial aquifer is shallow (about 50 feet in depth) and relatively thin (13 feet thick). During an average rainfall year the water levels fluctuate by about 20 feet. The lower water level results in reduced well yields, particularly in late summer and early fall. However, fall/winter rains typically recharge the aquifer fully by early January, producing artesian conditions. In other words, water levels rise above the top of the aquifer in the overlying clay. Water Budget Water Budget Analysis A water budget analysis was conducted to estimate available groundwater supply under existing conditions and provide the basis for evaluation of potential cumulative impacts of future water demands. A water budget analysis accounts for all water inflows, outflows, and change in storage of a watershed. The water budget equation is simply a statement of the conservation of mass in the



hydrologic system (Heath and Trainer, 1968) and can be expressed in the following equation:

Inflow - Outflow = Change in Storage Water Inflow to the system can be rainfall, surface water and groundwater inflow, irrigation return flows, and water import. Water Outflow to the system is usually more difficult to estimate but includes evapotranspiration, stream flow (both base flow and storm runoff), groundwater outflow, groundwater pumpage and consumption, and water exports. Groundwater pumpage is partially offset by irrigation or septic return flows. Change in Storage refers to changes in surface water and groundwater elevations from the beginning of the selected study period to the end. The study period represents an average rainfall period and includes both above and below average rainfall years. All hydrologic data are summarized on an annual basis; this study uses the water year, which extends from October 1 to September 31 (i.e., water year 1979 coincides with October 1, 1978 to September 31, 1979). Watershed: The watersheds affected by the project and alternatives primarily include Santa Margarita Creek and Yerba Buena Creek. Surface water drainage divides define the watershed. Groundwater divides are assumed to coincide with surface water divides. Therefore, surface water and groundwater inflows between watersheds are zero. In addition, imported water to the watersheds above their stream flow gauges is zero. The area above the stream flow gauges of Yerba Buena Creek (4.38 mi2 or 2,803 acres) is 38 percent of the area of Santa Margarita Creek (11.44 mi2 or 7,322 acres). Precipitation: The principal water inflow to the two watersheds is rainfall. Three rainfall gauge stations were reviewed for the analyses used in this SEIR: the Santa Margarita Booster Station, the Santa Margarita station, and the Santa Margarita Union Oil Company Station. The Santa Margarita Booster Station has a long record extending from 1948-1949 to 2010. The average annual rainfall from the 60-year record is approximately 32 inches. Annual rainfall varies from a minimum of 12.06 inches in 2006-2007 to over 60 inches in 1968-1969 and 1982-1983. The Santa Margarita station has a record extending from 1946 to 1975. The average annual rainfall from the 28-year record is approximately 29 inches. Annual rainfall varies from a minimum of 9.94 in 1947 to 49.55 inches in 1969. The Santa Margarita Union Oil Company Station has a record extending from 1908-1909 to 2010, with a break in the records from 1930 to 1940. The average annual rainfall from the nearly 100-year record is approximately 22 inches. Annual rainfall varies from a minimum of 7.37 inches in 1975-1976 to 53.94 inches in 1910-1911. Based on the rainfall records, precipitation in the area can fluctuate between 34 percent and 184 percent of the average annual rainfall. Precipitation was also assessed using an average annual rainfall or isohyetal map (CDWR, 1958). The areas between isohyets (equal precipitation contour lines) were measured with a self-compensating polar planimeter. The



computed average annual rainfall for the Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena watersheds were 29.48 inches and 29.82 inches, respectively, which is comparable to the long-term record averages (31.72 and 29.17 inches). Using these values, the total water inflow to the Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena watersheds is about 17,982 AFY and 6,965 AFY, respectively. Evapotranspiration: Evapotranspiration includes both direct evaporation from solar/wind energy and transpiration from vegetation. This component of the water budget is probably the most difficult to estimate. In general, evapotranspiration is the primary outflow and can account for about 70 percent of the total rainfall on the watershed. Stream Flow: (This sub-section is adapted from Todd [2004] and updated with information from Hopkins [2006]). Two stream flow gauge stations were reviewed for each respective watershed. The Santa Margarita Creek station, located near the intersection of State Highways 101 and 58, has a record from 1961 to 20001. The geometric average annual stream flow from the 35-year record is 4,170 AFY (arithmetic average: 7,681 AFY)2. Annual stream flow varies from a minimum of 277 AFY in 1990 to 32,347 AFY in 1995. The Yerba Buena Creek gauge station, located near the intersection of State Highway 58 and the SPRR tracks, has a record from 1965 to 19853. The geometric average annual stream flow from the 18-year record is 763 AFY (arithmetic average is 1,644 AFY). Annual stream flow varies from a minimum of 39 AFY in 1977 to 6,530 AFY in 1969. The stream flow records overlap between 1965 and 1985, indicating a good correlation between the two stations. In comparison, Yerba Buena Creek has approximately 20 percent of the surface stream flow of Santa Margarita Creek for the 17 valid records between these years. Of particular interest are the years from 1985 through 1991, which represent the most recent drought in the area. At the Santa Margarita Creek station the geometric average annual stream flow from the 6 year record4 is 1,479 AFY (arithmetic average: 1,956 AFY). Annual stream flow varies from a minimum of 277 AFY in 1990 to 4,096 AFY in 1991. During this period Santa Margarita Creek had approximately 35% of its average annual flow. Although data collection for Yerba Buena Creek ceased in 1985, the correlation shown between 1965 and 1985 would indicate that Yerba Buena Creek flowed at approximately 35% of average as well.

1 Data for years 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984 and 1986 are partial and were not used in the averages. 2 The geometric average is used when the data have several orders of magnitude between values; and is the nth root of the product of the values of n positive numbers or the antilogarithm of the average of the logarithms of individual values. The geometric average is a better estimator of the central tendency of a more variable data set than the arithmetic average. 3 Data for years 1979, 1980, 1983, and 1984 are partial and were not used in the averages. 4 Data for the year 1986 is partial and was not used in the averages.



Groundwater Outflow: McRae (1994) constructed water table maps for the Santa Margarita area. Using these maps, groundwater outflow can be estimated by applying Darcy's Law, which states that the discharge is directly proportional to the transmissivity (T -value) in gallons per day per foot (gpd/ft), the hydraulic gradient (i) in ft/ft, and the width (w) in feet of the aquifer.

Q=T x i x w Review of pumping test data indicates the transmissivity of the alluvium in the vicinity of Santa Margarita ranges from about 10,000 to 90,000 gpd/ft (McRae, 1994). The T-value in the vicinity of the gauge stations is about 10,000 gpd/ft. The water table map (McRae, 1994) provides: (1) the width of the aquifer, which ranges from 1,509 feet at the Yerba Buena gauge to 1,735 feet at Santa Margarita gauge, and (2) the hydraulic gradient, which ranges from 0.011 ft/ft at Yerba Buena to 0.0121 ft/ft at Santa Margarita. Calculations show that groundwater outflow ranges between 203 and 233 AFY beneath the gauges, respectively. This represents between 3 percent (Santa Margarita Creek) and 11 percent (Yerba Buena Creek) of the stream flow discharge. In other words, between 87 and 96 percent of the water conveyed naturally through the town of Santa Margarita is surface water. Pumpage: Groundwater pumpage has been recorded monthly for Wells #1, #2, #3 and #4 by CSA 23.5 Records indicate that total annual average pumpage between 1998 and 2003 was 202 AFY. Average total water pumpage between 2000 and 2010 was 197 AFY. Other groundwater pumping exists (e.g., the school well) but is assumed to be small. Well #4 supplies 75-80 percent of the water to the system from the Santa Margarita watershed (155 AFY average) while Well #3 pumps the remaining 42 AFY from the Yerba Buena watershed. Approximately 50 percent of the water pumped to consumers is assumed lost to evapotranspiration, while the remaining 50 percent is assumed to return to the groundwater basin by way of septic tanks and deep percolation of irrigation water for landscaping. Therefore, the gross pumpage (197 AFY) is offset partially by return flows (99 AFY) from irrigation and septic systems. While most of the pumping is assigned to the Santa Margarita watershed, most of the town's homes and businesses are in the Yerba Buena watershed. Accordingly, most of the return flows occur in the Yerba Buena watershed. Storage: McRae (1994) estimated groundwater storage for the Santa Margarita Creek alluvial aquifer system from the Salinas River to the headwaters of Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena Creeks. Review of the data indicated that groundwater storage beneath and upstream from the town is about 410 AF. This indicates a relatively small storage capacity in comparison to both the outflow component (203 + 233 AFY = 436 AFY) and groundwater pumpage (197 AFY). For the water budget, no substantial surface water reservoirs exist in the

5 Wells 1 & 2 are no longer used due to deficient construction of the wells. Wells 3 & 4 are the current source for pumping.



watershed and the change in groundwater storage can be assumed zero. If storage change is zero, then the residual of the equation represents net error. In summary, the inflows and outflows on a watershed basis are tabulated as follows: Santa Margarita Watershed Inflow = Rainfall (17,982 AFY) + Return flows (21 AFY) = 18,003 AFY Outflow = ET (12,592 AFY) + Surface Water Outflow (4,862 AFY) +

Groundwater Outflow (233 AFY) + Pumpage (155 AFY) = 17,842 AFY Groundwater Storage Change = 0 AFY Balance (net error = 0.99 percent) = 161 AFY Yerba Buena Watershed Inflow = Rainfall (6,965 AFY) + Return flows (78 AFY) = 7,042 AFY Outflow = ET (4,876 AFY) + Surface Water Outflow (1,861 AFY) +

Groundwater Outflow (203 AFY) + Pumpage (42 AFY) = 6,982 AFY Groundwater Storage Change = 0 AFY Balance (net error = .89 percent) = 60 AFY The balances result in small positive residuals that represent the net error in the calculations. These values do not represent "surplus" water that might be available for future development. If additional groundwater is developed by CSA 23 or other pumpers in the watershed, the water balance would change. Over the long term, increases in groundwater pumping would most likely be accompanied by decreases in other outflows, namely, evapotranspiration, stream flow and particularly, subsurface outflow. The actual impact on these outflows would depend on the amount, location, and timing of pumping. Outflow to evapotranspiration could decrease if the water table is drawn down and becomes less accessible to vegetation. With regard to stream flow, local stream flow is intermittent and largely represents winter-time runoff; some of this flow might be induced to percolate and flow into a well. An increase in groundwater pumping would likely affect subsurface outflow. As shown in the summary above, groundwater outflow is estimated at 233 AFY for the Santa Margarita watershed and 203 AFY for the Yerba Buena watershed, for a total of 436 AFY. Groundwater pumping by CSA 23 amounts to 197 AFY, with a net consumption of 99 AFY and return flows of 99 AFY. Assuming that all other inflows and outflows are negligible, then the total amount of subsurface flow entering the town of Santa Margarita from the south is about 535 AFY (436 AFY + 99 AFY). Pumping by CSA 23 intercepts about 37 percent of this flow (197 AFY/535 AFY) and consumes about 19 percent. The subsurface outflow from the area contributes to groundwater supplies downstream, including the Garden Farms area, Atascadero Sub-basin, and Paso Robles Basin as a whole.



Opportunities. The water budget analyses presented by McRae and Todd (above, updated to reflect current pumpage) indicate that the Santa Margarita Watershed has a greater rainfall inflow (17,982 AFY) than the Yerba Buena watershed while having similar groundwater outflows. This indicates that a greater quantity of groundwater may be developed from the Santa Margarita watershed. Groundwater development in the Yerba Buena Creek watershed would be less favorable than in the Santa Margarita watershed for the following reasons:

1. The average rainfall on the Yerba Buena Creek watershed (6,965 AFY) is substantially less than for the Santa Margarita Creek watershed (17,982 AFY)

2. The alluvial aquifers in the Yerba Buena Creek watershed are thinner and

not as extensive as those in the Santa Margarita Creek watershed

3. The water quality issues are more substantial due to the greater number of septic systems in the Yerba Buena watershed

Todd also makes several findings and recommendations which are relevant to the current proposal; among these are:

Finding 1: Strategically placed wells in the Santa Margarita drainage area can be installed to more fully manage the small groundwater basin and provide a reliable back-up system for CSA 23

Finding 5: Additional agricultural and/or residential development of the surrounding Santa Margarita Ranch based on groundwater is uncertain and additional demands will reduce the reliability of the alluvial aquifer as a source of groundwater Operating Recommendation 7: It would also be prudent to continue to negotiate with imported water agencies to supplement existing as well as potential resources, particularly during extreme drought (i.e., Water years 1991 and 1992) or during maximum month demands

The proposed drought reliability project is in response to Operating Recommendation 7, recognizing that while further groundwater development may provide various benefits to the community, drought periods require water from outside the local hydrogeologic system to provide an acceptable measure of public health and safety.



5.1.2 Regulatory Setting The laws and regulations governing hydrology and water quality can be separated into two general categories: water rights and water quality. The California Water Resources Control Board summarizes the various laws and regulations governing water rights as follows: A water right is a legal entitlement authorizing water to be diverted from a specified source and put to beneficial, nonwasteful use. Water rights are property rights, but their holders do not own the water itself. They possess the right to use it. The exercise of some water rights requires a permit or license from the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), whose objective is to ensure that the State’s waters are put to the best possible use, and that the public interest is served. In making decisions, the State Water Board must keep three major goals in mind:

1. Developing water resources in an orderly manner 2. Preventing waste and unreasonable use of water 3. Protecting the environment

Water right law in California and the rest of the West is markedly different from the laws governing water use in the eastern United States. Water Right Law. Seasonal, geographic, and quantitative differences in precipitation caused California’s water rights system to develop into a unique blend of two very different kinds of rights: riparian and appropriative. Other types of rights exist in California as well, among them reserved rights (water set aside by the federal government when it reserves land for the public domain) and pueblo rights (a municipal right based on Spanish and Mexican law). Riparian rights usually come with owning a parcel of land that is adjacent to a source of water. A riparian right entitles the landowner to use a correlative share of the water flowing past his or her property. Riparian rights do not require permits, licenses, or government approval, but they apply only to the water which would naturally flow in the stream. Riparian rights do not entitle a water user to divert water to storage in a reservoir for use in the dry season or to use water on land outside of the watershed. Riparian rights remain with the property when it changes hands, although parcels severed from the adjacent water source generally lose their right to the water. In 1850, California entered the Union as the thirty-first state. One of the first actions taken by its lawmakers was to adopt the common law of riparian rights. One year later, the Legislature recognized the appropriative right system as having the force of law. The appropriative right system continued to increase in



use as agriculture and population centers blossomed and ownership of land was transferred into private hands. The conflicting nature of California’s dual water right system prompted numerous legal disputes. Unlike appropriative users, riparian right holders were not required to put water to reasonable and beneficial use. This clash of rights eventually resulted in a constitutional amendment (Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution) that requires all use of water to be “reasonable and beneficial.” These “beneficial uses” have commonly included municipal and industrial uses, irrigation, hydroelectric generation, and livestock watering. More recently, the concept has been broadened to include recreational use, fish and wildlife protection, and enhancement and aesthetic enjoyment. Up to the early 1900’s appropriators--most of them miners and nonriparian farmers--had simply taken control of and used what water they wanted. Sometimes notice was filed with the county recorder, but no formal permission was required from any administrative or judicial body. The Water Commission Act of 1914 established today’s permit process. The Act created the agency that later evolved into the State Water Resources Control Board and granted it the authority to administer permits and licenses for California’s surface water. The act was the predecessor to today’s water Code provisions governing appropriation. These post-1914 appropriative rights are governed by a hierarchy of priorities developed by the forty-niners. In times of shortage the most recent (“junior”) right holder must be the first to discontinue such use; each right’s priority dates to the time the permit application was filed with the State Board. Although pre- and post-1914 appropriative rights are similar, post-1914 rights are subject to a much greater degree of scrutiny and regulation by the Board. Riparian rights still have a higher priority than appropriative rights. The priorities of riparian right holders generally carry equal weight; during a drought all share the shortage among themselves. Ground Water Rights. In most areas of California, overlying land owners may extract percolating ground water and put it to beneficial use without approval from the State Board or a court. California does not have a permit process for regulation of ground water use. In several basins, however, groundwater use is subject to regulation in accordance with court decrees adjudicating the ground water rights within the basins. The California Supreme Court decided in the 1903 case Katz v. Walkinshaw that the “reasonable use” provision that governs other types of water rights also applies to ground water. Prior to this time, the English system of unregulated ground water pumping had dominated but proved to be inappropriate to



California’s semiarid climate. The Supreme Court case established the concept of overlying rights, in which the rights of others with land overlying the aquifer must be taken into account. Later court decisions established that ground water may be appropriated for use outside the basin, although appropriator’s rights are subordinate to those with overlying rights. Water Quality. The two key laws governing water quality in California are the federal Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code). The federal Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency responsible for water quality management nationwide, through the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board administers water rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions under Porter-Cologne, while the Regional Water Quality Control Board conducts water planning, permitting, and enforcement activities. The California Department of Health Services (DHS) is responsible for establishing and enforcing uniform statewide drinking water criteria to ensure public health. Natural Resource Impacts. As noted above, the concept of beneficial use has more recently been broadened to include recreational use, fish and wildlife protection, and enhancement and aesthetic enjoyment. In their September 23, 2010 response to the Notice of Preparation, the National Marine Fisheries Service expresses concerns about any alternative that relies on local groundwater aquifers to provide water during drought conditions. The basis of this concern is the connection between surface and groundwater, the reliance of sensitive species on surface flow in area streams, and the potential for violations of the federal Endangered Species Act to result from the withdrawal of groundwater from streamside aquifers. Under the federal Endangered Species Act, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to "take" any species of fish or wildlife listed as endangered within the United States. 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B). The term "take" is defined by the Endangered Species Act to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such activity. 16 U.S.C. § 1532(19). "Harm" has been defined by the National Marine Fisheries Service to mean:

... an act which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation which actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering. 50 C.F.R. § 222.102.



5.1.3 Significance Criteria According to Appendix G (IX) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold of significance for impacts related to hydrology and water quality that which could:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially

with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,

including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

5.1.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.1.4.1 Proposed Project The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system. This connection would supply additional water, imported from outside the local water basin, during a period of less than average rainfall. Importing water into the local groundwater system would reduce impacts to the local groundwater basin due to the “new” additional return flows (septic systems) as well as a reduction in pumping of the groundwater to meet the community’s demands. The State Water pipeline delivers water treated to drinking water standards at the Polonio Pass water treatment plant, located in the northeastern part of San Luis Obispo County. As a result, various chemicals used to treat the water, the byproducts of treatment, and the disposal of removed contaminants, does not occur in the local hydrologic basin. Therefore, potential water quality impacts are nil.



From the perspectives of Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project’s impacts are beneficial, and therefore not significant. No Hydrology and Water Quality mitigation measures are required. 5.1.4.2 Water Conservation This alternative consists of the implementation of a comprehensive water conservation program consisting of two primary parts. The first part, or “base” program, would be implemented at the earliest opportunity and would be effective at all times, regardless of the status of the groundwater (or other) supply. The second or “drought” part would go into effect when triggered by shortages or potential shortages in the water supply that occur either as a result of prolonged drought or other events that reduce the available water. As water usage per capita is lowered via implementation of a water conservation plan during periods of drought, pumping of local groundwater would be reduced. At the same time, return flows from septic systems would also be reduced, lessening the amount of local groundwater recharge. It is assumed that during drought periods, outdoor irrigation would be eliminated, so there would be no return flows from irrigation. As discussed in the Environmental Setting section above, groundwater outflow is estimated at 233 AFY for the Santa Margarita watershed and 203 AFY for the Yerba Buena watershed, for a total of 436 AFY. Groundwater pumping by CSA 23 amounts to 197 AFY, with a net consumption of 99 AFY and return flows of 99 AFY. Assuming that all other inflows and outflows are negligible, the total amount of subsurface flow entering the town of Santa Margarita from the south is about 535 AFY (436 AFY + 99 AFY). Pumping by CSA 23 intercepts about 37 percent of this flow (197 AFY/535 AFY) and consumes about 19 percent. During drought periods, groundwater outflow will continue even if CSA 23 reduces pumping, although the rate may slow as less water enters the system above the town of Santa Margarita. Put another way, the ability to save water in the local aquifer to be used during later drought periods is diminished, potentially to the point of ineffectiveness, because of the natural gradient underlying the local aquifers. That is, the Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena aquifers will continue to drain in a northerly direction regardless of the actions of CSA 23 and other local pumpers to reduce pumping. Therefore, even with ongoing conservation, Santa Margarita will be dependent on regular annual replenishment of groundwater by rainfall. As a drought period lengthens, groundwater levels would continue to drop throughout the local aquifers, potentially resulting in the loss of supply from well # 4, and any other wells located in the shallow aquifer (Including wells #1 and #2). Because well #3 cannot be guaranteed to provide sufficient supplies to serve the community without another source, the water conservation alternative would ultimately not meet the community’s need during periods of extended drought. The result



would be a substantial, although temporary, depletion of groundwater supplies such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume and a lowering of the local groundwater table level, to the degree that significant health and safety impacts could result. As groundwater levels drop due to municipal pumping and drought, outflows to surface streams would also drop, and ultimately cease, as groundwater levels drop below the elevation of adjacent stream courses. Although it can be postulated that stream flows would cease during extended droughts with or without municipal groundwater pumping, it is also equally evident that stream flows would cease earlier in a season because of groundwater pumping. Consequently, total reliance on a water conservation program would likely result in interference with essential life stages of sensitive species, particularly steelhead. (See also the discussion under biological resources in this EIR). The water conservation alternative, if implemented independently, would result in significant unavoidable impacts on groundwater and public health and safety. However, if implemented in concert with the proposed project, the water conservation alternative has the potential to result in beneficial impacts to hydrology and water quality by reducing groundwater pumping during drought periods. 5.1.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Option A: This option would connect to the Nacimiento Water Project via a pipeline connection to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC). During water supply emergencies, as declared by the County Board of Supervisors, AMWC would, for some level of consideration, provide treated water to Santa Margarita through its existing system. During normal years, no water would flow to Santa Margarita through Atascadero’s system. Any additional “new” water the community would receive during a drought from an outside/additional source has a positive impact due to the additional return flows (septic systems) as well as reduction in pumping of the groundwater to meet the water demands. Option B: This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento Water Project water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. Depending on the length and severity of the drought, the pumping of up to 80 acre feet of groundwater from the Ranch’s



existing wells would likely not result in long-term hydrologic or water quality effects. It should be assumed that the pumped water would be drawn from the Santa Margarita formation, and not from alluvial aquifers, because it is likely that the alluvial aquifers would have been drawn down in the drought. Option C: This option would connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. This option would have the same beneficial impacts as it is an additional water supply that would provide “new” return flows and reduce pumping of the groundwater. 5.1.4.4 Groundwater Option A: This option would place a new deep well near well #3. An additional well drilled within the Santa Margarita formation may or may not have an impact on existing wells. However, information developed in the Hydrogeological Study for the Santa Margarita Ranch Development (Hopkins 2006) indicates that groundwater levels on the Ranch, east of the town of Santa Margarita and in the Santa Margarita formation, have resulted in lowered groundwater levels such that interference between wells in the formation is likely. However, key factors include proximity to existing wells (CSA well #3 and school irrigation well) and the depth of new well. Combined with the overall lower yield in Santa Margarita formation wells, potential interference would render a new deep well ineffective as a new, drought period, water source. As a result, this option could result in a potentially substantial hydrogeological impact, as it would negatively affect other wells in the formation. Option B: This option would place a new deep well on the school property. An additional well on the school property would likely have an impact on the existing school irrigation well’s water level due to the limited locations available for a new well on the property that would not interfere with the existing irrigation well, but whether quantity would be effected is not known. During drought conditions both the irrigation well and a new community well would both be pumping heavily to meet demands. Impacts to the school well associated with pumping from a lower water level could include costs of pumping and water quality. Since the school only uses the water for irrigation, quality would likely not be a concern. The new deep well would be located in the same bedrock formation as well #3, and not in an alluvial aquifer. Therefore, no long term predictions about its capacity can be made. While well #3 has proven reliable as a supplemental



source, the ability of any other bedrock well to supply a regular ongoing volume of water cannot be quantified. As a result, this option could result in a potentially substantial hydrogeological impact, as it would negatively affect other wells in the formation. Option C: This option involves the development of a new alluvial well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community. This option would result in similar effects to the “no project” and “water conservation” alternatives, both of which rely heavily on the production from the same alluvial aquifer that is currently utilized by well #4. As a drought period lengthens, groundwater levels would continue to drop throughout the local aquifers, potentially resulting in the loss of supply from both the new alluvial well and well #4. Because well #3 cannot be guaranteed to provide sufficient supplies to serve the community without another source, this alternative would ultimately not meet the community’s need during periods of extended drought. The result would be a substantial, although temporary, depletion of groundwater supplies such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume and a lowering of the local groundwater table level, to the degree that significant health and safety impacts could result. As groundwater levels drop due to municipal pumping and drought, outflows to surface streams would also drop, and ultimately cease, as groundwater levels drop below the elevation of adjacent stream courses. Although it can be postulated that stream flows would cease during extended droughts with or without municipal groundwater pumping, it is also equally evident that stream flows would cease earlier in a season because of groundwater pumping. Consequently, total reliance on a new alluvial well would likely result in interference with essential life stages of sensitive species, particularly steelhead. (See also the discussion under biological resources in this EIR). 5.1.4.5 No Project This alternative would continue the community’s reliance on existing well #4 in the alluvial aquifer, and well #3 in the bedrock. No additional water supplies or wells for drought reliability would be developed. In a drought scenario the community would continue to pump their highest producing well, #4, until the well level dropped such that pumping ceased to water quality and/or operational issues. Well #3, the lower producing well, would then be utilized as the sole supply. At current usage rates, well #3 could not provide adequate water, which would result in a substantial public health and safety impact. However, if, at the current population level, water conservation reduced water use to less than 50 gallons per day per capita, well #3 could theoretically supply the necessary volume, based on the historic annual production of the well (about 80 acre feet per year). However, because well #3 is located in bedrock, and not an alluvial




aquifer, no long term predictions about its capacity can be made. While it has proven reliable as a supplemental source, the ability of well #3, or any other bedrock well, to supply a regular ongoing volume of water cannot be quantified. As a result, the no project alternative could result in a potentially significant hydrology impact because it relies on over-pumping both alluvial and bedrock aquifers, and places a heavy water supply reliance on an unquantifiable water source. 5.1.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to hydrologic and water quality resources were also evaluated. The proposed project’s potential hydrologic and water quality impacts are the result of construction activities, and not on-going operational activities. Because of the short duration and limited scope of the project’s construction, cumulative hydrologic and water quality impacts would not be considered significant.

5.2 Geology, Seismicity, and Soils

5.2 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY and SOILS Geologic, seismic and soils information related to the proposed project is contained in four key documents:

Final EIR, State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II, CA Department of Water Resources, May 1991 [Chapters 2 and 4]


Facilities, County of San Luis Obispo, March 1992 (State Water EIR) [Section 4.1]

Draft Environmental Constraints Analysis for Santa Margarita Ranch,

Envicom Corporation/County of San Luis Obispo, March 1994 [Section 2.1]



and Future Development Program, County of San Luis Obispo, June 2008 This section addresses the effects of the project relative to geologic, seismic, and soil conditions in and around the community of Santa Margarita, including effects on water quality. This section will focus on the impacts that could occur with connection of Santa Margarita to the existing state water pipeline, as well as analyze the probable effects that the geologic, seismic, and soil conditions in the area have on the project alternatives. 5.2.1 Environmental Setting Geology San Luis Obispo County occupies an area of complex geology extending from the Pacific Coast on the west to the San Andreas Rift Zone on the east. The Coast Ranges province is dominated by mountains as opposed to valley topography. Relatively small intervening valleys lie within the complexly folded, faulted and uplifted mountains with the size and location of these valleys controlled by local geologic structure. While predominantly parallel to the northwest trending San Andreas Fault, many of these valleys follow other trends. The Santa Lucia and La Panza Ranges lie roughly northwest and southeast of the community, respectively. The area lies within the southern Coast Ranges and comprises a central alluvial valley complex with low lying hills bordered on the west by the Santa Lucia Range of higher bedrock mountains, and on the east by the Salinas River.



Geologic structure, formed by millions of years of folding and faulting, is oriented predominantly in a northwesterly direction; the northwest draining Yerba Buena, Santa Margarita and Trout Creeks follow this trend. Geologic bedrock units in the region around the site range in age from the Jurassic Franciscan Formation (melange) through Pliocene Paso Robles Formation. These units have a wide range of physical properties with older basement rocks found in the higher elevations being generally more resistant to weathering and degradation; they are also more highly fractured, and structurally more complex. The intermediate-aged bedrock units flank the ranges and border the alluvial valleys; they are softer and weather into smoother low lying hills with fewer fractures and exhibit a gentler folding into synclines and anticlines. Alluvium occupies the lower portions of the valleys and ranges from older uplifted and dissected river terraces and alluvial fans to the most recent stream deposits in the lower elevation flood plains and active river channels. Structurally simple and relatively undisturbed by faulting, these units are semi-consolidated to loose, and generally comprise mixtures of gravel, sand and silt (See Figure 5.2-1, Geologic Map). Seismicity The San Luis Obispo County area is crossed by many active and potentially active earthquake faults from the San Andreas Rift Zone on the east to the Hosgri and Santa Lucia Bank faults far offshore to the west. Right-lateral strike slip fault movement predominates in the region although thrust and reverse faults can interrupt this pattern, both paralleling and cutting across the prevailing northwest trends. At least thirty-three active and potentially active earthquake producing faults lie within 100 miles of the center of the project area. Individual earthquakes as large as magnitude 7.9 have occurred within this distance. Fault rupture of the ground surface is possible on any of these faults with a large enough earthquake and secondary effects such as ground settlement, liquefaction and landsliding can occur (See Figure 5.2-2, Regional Fault Map) Soils According to the 1992 State Water EIR, soils in the Santa Margarita area exhibit a range of characteristics that would need to be considered when developing a water supply project. In general, shrink-swell potentials range from moderate to high, the erosion hazard varies substantially from slight to high, and the risk of corrosion of steel and concrete also varies from low to high (See Figure 5.2-3, Soils Map).



5.2.2 Regulatory Setting Three regulatory processes relate directly to geologic, seismic and soils issues: the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972; the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance; and the Uniform Building Code/County Building and Construction Ordinance. The Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone Act of 1972 (California Public Resources Code, Section 2621, et seq.) establishes criteria and policies to assist cities, counties, and state agencies in the exercise of their responsibility to prohibit the location of development and structures for human occupancy across the trace of active faults as defined by the State Mining and Geology Board. Title 22 of the San Luis Obispo County Code (Land Use Ordinance, Section 22.07.080) sets forth the Combining Designation Standards for Geologic Study Areas. These are areas where "geologic and soil conditions could present new developments and their users with potential hazards to life and property." The standards require preparation of a report on geologic hazards and appropriate mitigation measures. Structures must be designed to overcome these hazards. Title 19 of the San Luis Obispo County Code (Incorporating the Uniform Building Code) sets forth construction standards for structures to ensure that buildings are designed and built to withstand movement resulting from seismic events, soil expansion and other geologic conditions. 5.2.3 Significance Criteria According to Appendix G (VI) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the threshold of significance for a geologic or seismic impact is that which could:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would

become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?



In applying this definition, potentially adverse effects on a water supply system are considered adverse effects on the environment because: 1) the failure of pipelines or other associated facilities may result in substantial secondary effects such as local flooding, erosion and sedimentation, etc., that would be impacts on the CEQA environment; and 2), failure of a major public water-supply facility could result in substantial adverse effects on the public. 5.2.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.2.4.1 Proposed Project The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system. In the event of an earthquake, ground acceleration of 0.11g to 0.5g could occur in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline connection, causing adverse significant impacts in the north county area. Mercalli intensities ranging from VII to IX could result. (Exhibit 5.2-1). A Mercalli Intensity of VII would damage concrete irrigation ditches, while a Mercalli Intensity of IX would break underground pipes. Potential impacts due to subsidence are also significant. Potential significant adverse impacts due to liquefaction may occur in areas where the pipeline would cross alluvium containing high water levels. An earthquake with a Mercalli Intensity of IX would cause liquefaction in alIuviated areas. Mitigation measures for potential geologic, seismic and soils impacts include the following: GEO 1: If a shallow ground-water table is encountered, dewatering will be necessary during excavation for the project. Shallow groundwater may be avoided by timing the excavation to occur during the dry season. GEO 2: Excavation safety impacts may be mitigated when appropriate by trench side-wall protection devices such as buttresses and shoring. Excavations shall conform to OSHA's regulations. Side wall protection is only required in trenches 5 feet deep or more. GEO 3: Specific seismic geotechnical investigations for the pipeline shall be conducted and included in the final project construction plans. GEO 4: Effects of seismic shaking shall be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters applicable to the project. Such seismic design practices assume a design ground acceleration that is equal to two-thirds the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. A certified engineering geologist or civil engineer would need to conduct site specific



investigations to determine what the design criteria should be. These investigations shall be conducted prior to final design. GEO 5: Where the potential for liquefaction is great, such as in poorly consolidated alluvium, mitigation will be needed. These mitigations may include strengthened pipe and pipe anchors, flexible piping and/or removal of material. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be conducted in all areas with significant liquefaction potential to identify appropriate design criteria. GEO 6: Settlement or subsidence impacts will be mitigated by including flexible piping, strengthened pipe and/or removal of material and re-compaction where determined to be necessary by the design engineer. With the application of the mitigation measures listed above, identified significant geologic, seismic, and soils impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to insignificance.



Exhibit 5.2-1 Modified Mercalli Scale, 1956 Version

M Intensity Effects

Average Peak Ground Acceleration in g’s

I Not felt. Marginal and long-period effects of large earthquakes II Felt by persons at rest, on upper floors, or favorably placed 3 III Felt indoors. Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of light trucks.

Duration estimated. May not be recognized as an earthquake 0.0035-0.007 IV Hanging objects swing. Vibration like passing of heavy trucks; or sensation

of a jolt like a heavy ball striking walls. Standing cars rock. Windows, dishes, doors rattle. Glasses clink. Crockery clashes. In the upper range of IV wooden walls and frames creak

0.007-0.015

4 V Felt outdoors; direction estimated. Sleepers wakened. Liquids disturbed,

some spilled. Small unstable objects displaced or upset Doors swing, close, open. . Shutters, pictures move. Pendulum clocks stop, start, change rate.

0.015-0.035

VI Felt by all. Many frightened and run outdoors. Persons walk unsteadily. Windows, dishes, glassware broken. Knickknacks, books, etc., off shelves. Pictures off walls. Furniture moved or overturned. Weak plaster and masonry D cracked. Small bells ring (church, school). Trees, bushes shaken (visibly, or heard to rustle).

0.035-0.07

5 VII Difficult to stand. Noticed by drivers of cars. Hanging objects quiver

Furniture broken. Damage to masonry D, including cracks. Weak chimneys broken at roof line. Fall of plaster, loose bricks, stones, tiles, cornices (also un-braced parapets and architectural ornaments). Some cracks in masonry C. Waves on ponds; water turbid with mud. Small slides and caving in along sand or gravel banks. Large bells ring. Concrete irrigation ditches damaged.

. 0.07-0.15

6 VIII Steering of cars affected. Damage to masonry C; partial collapse. Some damage to masonry B; none to masonry A. Fall of stucco and some masonry walls. Twisting, fall of chimneys, factory stacks, monuments, towers, elevated tanks. Frame houses moved on foundations if not bolted down; loose panel walls thrown out. Decayed piling broken off. Branches broken from trees. Changes in flow or temperature of springs and wells. Cracks in wet ground and on steep slopes.

0.15-0.35

7 IX General panic. Masonry D destroyed; masonry C heavily damaged, sometimes with complete collapse; masonry B seriously damaged. (General damage to foundations). Frame structures, it not bolted, shifted off foundations. Frame racked. Serious damage to reservoirs. Underground pipes broken. Conspicuous cracks in ground. In alluviated areas sand and mud ejected, earthquake fountains, sand craters.

0.35-0.7

X Most masonry and frame structures destroyed with their foundations. Some well-built wooden structures and bridges destroyed. Serious damage to dams, dikes, embankments. Large landslides. Water thrown on banks of canals, rivers, lakes, etc. Sand and mud shifted horizontally on beaches and flat land. Rails bent slightly.

0.7-1.2

XI Rails bent greatly. Underground pipelines completely out of service. >1.2

8

XII Damage nearly total. Large rock masses displaced. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown into the air.

Note: Masonry A, B, C, D. To avoid ambiguity of language, the quality of masonry, brick or otherwise, is specified by the following lettering (which has no connection with the conventional Class A, B, C construction). Masonry A: Good workmanship, mortar, and design; reinforced, especially laterally, and bound together by using steel, concrete, etc.; designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry B: Good workmanship and mortar; reinforced, but not designed to resist lateral forces. Masonry C: Ordinary workmanship and mortar; no extreme weaknesses such as non-tied in corners, but masonry is neither reinforced nor designed against horizontal forces. Masonry D: Weak materials, such as adobe; poor mortar; low standards of workmanship; weak horizontally.



5.2.4.2 Water Conservation Implementation of the water conservation alternative would avoid the class II geology, seismic, and soils impacts of the proposed project; no mitigation measures would be necessary. 5.2.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential impacts to the Nacimiento Water Project resulting from geologic, seismic or soils conditions are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.2]. Impacts and mitigation measures applicable to Santa Margarita are similar to those identified for the State Water Project since both projects consist of pipelines through the community. Option A: The approximate 3-mile long Santa Margarita connection to the Nacimiento project would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento pipeline. With the application of the listed measures, the geologic, seismic and soils impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento water project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Option B: Pipeline connections between the community and producing wells on the Santa Margarita Ranch, and connections between the Nacimiento Water Line and the Ranches irrigation facilities, would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento pipeline. With the application of the listed measures, the geologic, seismic and soils impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento water project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Option C: Pipeline connections between the Nacimiento Water Line, the new treatment plant, and the community water distribution system would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento pipeline. With the application of the listed measures, the geologic, seismic and soils impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento water project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.




5.2.4.4 Groundwater Pipelines associated with all of the groundwater alternatives would be subject to the same potential impacts as those associated with both the proposed state water connection and the Nacimiento project. Depending on the location(s) of future wells, the design of pipelines associated with additional wells would need to address soil conditions related to shallow groundwater with the attendant potential for liquefaction. As noted in the discussion of earthquake intensities in Figure 5.2-1, stronger seismic events may result in changes in the flow or temperature of springs and wells. Shallow wells located in the alluvial aquifer are less subject to changes in flow due to seismic events; however, deeper wells located in the bedrock aquifer could be subject to a lowering or loss of flow. The groundwater alternative would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. 5.2.4.5 No Project Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid the class II geology, seismic, and soils impacts of the proposed project related to the new pipeline, however, one of two existing community wells (the bedrock aquifer well) could be vulnerable to flow changes related to a significant seismic event, as discussed above. 5.2.5 Cumulative Impacts The potential impacts of geology, seismic events and soils are site specific and no cumulative effects of the project in these topics are expected.

£¤101

|ÿ58

¯0 0.5 10.25

Miles

LegendCSA23 BOUNDARY

Regional Fault LinesRoads - County MaintainedState HwyU.S. Hwy


FIGURE 5.2-2Regional Fault Map

Rinconada Fault

Nacimien to Fault Zone

Nacimiento Fault Zone



El Camino Real

|ÿ58

|ÿ58

£¤101

El Cam ino Real

Dib

ble

Stil

l

Cle

arLa

ke

CalodoXerofluvents

San

Andreas

Po

sita

sClea

rLa

ke

Rin

con

Xe

roflu

ven

ts Cal

odo

Dibble

Cle

ar

Lake

San

Andreas

Elde

r

Wa

ter

Dibble

Botella

Arb

uckl

e

Stil

l

Arb

uckl

e

Stil

l

Greenfield

Dibble

Botella

Dib

ble H

anfo

rd

Hanford

Sa

n A

nd

reas

Dib

ble

Bo

tella

Dib

ble

Botella

Clear Lake

Cal

odo

Dib

ble

Elde

r

Dib

ble

Aya

r

Rincon

Aya

r

SanAndreas

Santa Lucia

Dibble

Arbuckle

Oceano

San

And

reas

Dibble

Xerofluvents

Clear

Lake

Pos

itas

Still

Botella

Dibble

Dib

ble

Eld

er

Dib

ble Still

SantaLucia

Po

sita

s

OceanoC

lear

Lake

Dibb

le

Still

Dibble

Lompico

StillArb

uckl

e

Dibble

Arb

uckl

eD

ibble

Shim

mon S

till SantaLucia

Hanford

Po

sitas

Santa

LuciaGazosDibble

Stil

l

³0 0.25 0.50.125

Miles


Roads - County MaintainedState HwyU.S. Hwy


FIGURE 5.2-3Soils Map

5.3 Drainage, Erosion and Sedimentation

5.3 DRAINAGE, EROSION and SEDIMENTATION

The direct physical impact of the State Water Project was primarily the result of the construction of the pipelines, both the coastal branch as well as the major local lines. The 1992 EIR recognizes the substantial impacts that could result from erosion and sedimentation, as well as from changes in drainage patterns if ground surfaces were altered in the pipeline corridor. The 1992 EIR also recognized the close correlation of drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts to biological resource impacts, as waterways are typically highly sensitive from a biological standpoint. More information on overall drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts of the State Water project can be obtained by reviewing section 4.1 (for soils) and section 4.4 (for biological impacts) of the 1992 EIR. 5.3.1 Environmental Setting The turnout and pipeline connection component of the proposed project is located in the northeast corner of the community of Santa Margarita. The approximate 65 foot long section of pipe crosses disturbed grassland to connect the CSA 23 distribution system to the coastal branch of the state water pipeline. The majority of the area to be excavated was disturbed with the installation of the main line in the mid-1990s. The construction area slopes gently to the south at less than 5%. Soils are Clear Lake clay and exhibit moderate erodibility characteristics. The work area is approximately 50 feet north of a drainage channel that carries water from a low-lying floodplain in the Santa Margarita Ranch around a mobile home park within the boundaries of the community. Portions of the work area may be subject to minor flooding during substantial rainfall events. Figure 5.3-1 illustrates the 100 year floodplain in the Santa Margarita area. 5.3.2 Regulatory Setting Federal Policies and Regulations Discharges to public waterways are under the purview of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to federal Clean Water Act regulations, while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for identifying flood hazards, coordinating flood plain management and regulating the placement of structures in flood plains. At locations of pipeline stream crossings, regulations of the Army Corps of Engineers would apply. In areas where a proposed project would not impact streams (but could impact floodplains), FEMA would be the federal agency with the primary responsibility to regulate the project. The minimum flood plain management requirements for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR 60.3).



Regulations of the Federal Railroad Administration would apply where a proposed project is located within railroad right-of-way, and an encroachment permit would be obtained from the railroad. Water quality protection is regulated by the Federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (established by the Clean Water Act). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency established storm water permit requirements based on compliance with a NPDES permit. Discharges of storm water associated with construction activity that results in a disturbance of one acre or more of total land area require an NPDES General Permit. This permit requires projects to implement Best Management Practices to prevent the discharge of sediment-laden water offsite. The site-specific plan to implement BMPs is called the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The plan must include a description of soil stabilization and sediment load control methods that would be implemented to minimize erosion and sediment loading during construction of the project. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan also includes descriptions of post-construction best management practices. The State of California administers the storm water permits through the State Water Resources Control Board and its local Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The project area is within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. State Policies and Regulations The State of California administers Storm Water Regulations according to the California Water Code Section 13399. The State Water Resources Control Board issues the NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The Regional Water Quality Control Board monitors the provisions of this general permit. At all stream and wetland crossings, permits would be issued by the California Department of Fish and Game. Regulations of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) apply where a pipeline alignment is located within Caltrans right-of-way. Local Policies and Regulations The County of San Luis Obispo Safety Element contains Policy S-7, Flood Hazards: "Strictly enforce flood hazard regulations both current and revised. FEMA regulations and other requirements for the placement of structures in flood plains will be followed. Maintain standards for development in flood-prone and poorly drained areas."



5.3.3 Significance Criteria Criteria for Construction Short-term surface water resources impacts due to construction would be significant if:

Temporary changes in stream flow patterns to accommodate construction activities resulted in downstream erosion and/or backwater effects/flooding

Damage to construction sites occurs during flood flows while a pipeline is

being installed in a streambed

An increase in turbidity and sedimentation occurs in streams crossed and/or paralleled due to clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling operations

Short-term groundwater impacts due to construction would be significant if:

Impairment of groundwater recharge occurs from sedimentation in streams caused by clearing, grading, trenching, and backfilling operations

Criteria for Operation Adverse impacts due to operation of the proposed project would be significant if:

Erosion and downstream sedimentation occurred due to a water supply pipeline rupture

5.3.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.3.4.1 Proposed Project The severity of flooding and erosion impacts for a particular location is dependent on the need for stream diversions during construction, the amount of activity planned to occur within a stream channel or flood plain, and the construction schedule. Based on the planned alignment of the proposed pipeline, construction activities are possible near the seasonal drainage channel along the southern boundary of the site. Hydrologic information on county streams indicates runoff generally occurs only during and immediately after precipitation, but stream flow can rise rapidly and carry large amounts of debris during storms. Based on historical floods in the Salinas River system, the greatest possibility of flooding within the county occurs from December to March. Therefore, if all construction is limited to summer months, the probability of severe flooding impacts would be low. If work is not



limited to the dry season, potential impacts from construction near the drainage channel could be significant. If excavated soils or stockpiled soils and backfill material were not protected from erosive factors such as wind and rain, construction of the pipeline could contribute to sedimentation problems downstream. Potential adverse impacts to surface water, stream channel, and soil resources during construction are significant due to flooding, erosion, and downstream sedimentation. Mitigation measures for potential drainage, erosion, and sedimentation impacts include the following: DES 1: An Erosion Control Plan will be prepared in conjunction with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (if required) to devise specific soil erosion control measures. The plan would include but not be limited to the following measures:

Construction activities through areas of concern will be scheduled during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) if feasible

Revegetation of areas disturbed or cleared during construction will occur

after construction is completed and before the rainy season DES 2: Inspect erosion control measures daily and repair all damage immediately. The following proposed mitigation measures are considered necessary whenever a chance of rain, however slight, is forecast by the National Weather Service or local news media. DES 3: Prepare in advance and have construction crews ready to implement an emergency construction site securing procedure, which will include personnel and equipment evacuation, trench closure, and materials removal procedures. DES 4: Heavy equipment and construction activities will be restricted to the defined construction ROW. Equipment access and construction through drainages should be conducted from the banks rather than within the drainage. DES 5: Do not store construction materials or spoils within the channel or banks. DES 6: Obtain weather updates on a daily basis, or more frequently if inclement conditions are threatening. In the unlikely event of a total pipeline rupture, a volume of released water could cause a great amount of localized erosion because water is discharged under high pressure onto the ground surface. As eroded sediments move downstream,



sedimentation within stream channels would also result, creating a significant impact to surface waters. DES 7: CSA 23 will develop and implement a plan providing emergency response and repair procedures for an accidental rupture. The plan will include remedial erosion control measures for areas downstream of the rupture. DES 8: CSA 23 will implement a regular inspection and maintenance program to detect possible problems with pipeline integrity. DES 9: CSA 23 will provide thorough inspection of the pipeline materials and construction techniques while the pipelines are being installed. The County will specify the use of materials with proven reliability only. With the application of the mitigation measures listed above, identified significant drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to insignificance. 5.3.4.2 Water Conservation Implementation of the Water Conservation alternative would avoid the class II drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts of the proposed project related to the new pipeline. No mitigation measures would be required. 5.3.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.3]. Impacts and mitigation measures applicable to Santa Margarita are similar to those identified for the State Water Project since both projects consist of pipelines through the community. Option A: The approximate 3-mile long Santa Margarita connection to the Nacimiento project would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento pipeline. With the application of the listed measures, the drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento water project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.



Option B: Pipeline connections between the community and producing wells on the Santa Margarita Ranch, and connections between the Nacimiento waterline and the Ranch’s irrigation facilities, would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento Water Project. With the application of the listed measures, the drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Option C: Pipeline connections between the Nacimiento Water Project, the new treatment plant, and the community water distribution system would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento Water Project. With the application of the listed measures, the drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 5.3.4.4 Groundwater Pipelines associated with the groundwater alternatives would generate the same set of potential impacts as those associated with both the proposed state water connection and the Nacimiento project. Depending on the location(s) of future wells, the route of pipelines associated with additional wells would need to address drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts. Again dependent on the location of new wells, pipelines may need to be constructed across flowing streams. Additional mitigation measures related to stream diversion and in-stream water quality would be required. 5.3.4.5 No Project Implementation of the No Project Alternative would avoid the class II drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts of the proposed project related to the new pipeline. 5.3.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to drainage, sedimentation, and erosion were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as the CSA 23 Waterline Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of




the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative drainage, erosion, and sedimentation impacts. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant drainage, erosion and sedimentation concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically result in initially high erosion rates. While these rates diminish over time, they typically do not return to the pre-development soil loss and sedimentation rates associated with undeveloped grazing lands. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in increased soil loss rates, although the Ranch has instituted progressive measures to reduce erosion and sedimentation as much as possible. However, on-going erosion from access roads and newly developed vineyards is a concern. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, most notably the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Run-off from access roads, paved surfaces, and building roofs tends to concentrate in existing drainages, resulting in increases in flows and velocities which in turn result in higher soil erosion rates. Because the direct contribution of the proposed project to cumulative drainage, erosion and sedimentation impacts is minimal, and only the result of short term construction impacts, the overall cumulative contribution from the project is not considered significant.

El Ca

mino

Rea

l

£¤101

£¤101

|ÿ58

¯0 0.25 0.50.125

Miles


100-year flood

Roads - County MaintainedState HwyU.S. Hwy


FIGURE 5.3-1100 Year Floodplain Map

5.4 Air Quality

5.4 Air Quality This section describes environmental and regulatory settings related to air quality in the project area, identifies the air quality impacts of the proposed project, the alternatives, and the cumulative impacts in the area, and lists potential mitigation measures. Air quality information relevant to the project is contained in five key documents:







December 2003 [Section 5.4]

San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 2009

Final EIR, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Cluster Subdivision Project

and Future Development Program, County of San Luis Obispo, June 2008 The majority of the information presented here is adapted from the Nacimiento Water Project EIR. 5.4.1 Environmental Setting The Santa Margarita area is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) which includes all of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura counties. The climate of San Luis Obispo County and all of the SCCAB is strongly influenced by its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and the location of the semi-permanent high pressure cell in the northeastern Pacific. With a Mediterranean-type climate, the Santa Margarita area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool winters with occasional rainy periods. Maximum summer temperatures in the County average about 70 degrees Fahrenheit near the coast, while inland valleys are often in the high 90's. Average minimum winter temperatures range from the low 30's along the coast to the low 20's inland. Airflow around the County plays an important role in the movement and dispersion of pollutants. The speed and direction of local winds are controlled by


5.4 Air Quality

the location and strength of the Pacific high pressure system and other global patterns, topographical factors, and circulation patterns resulting from temperature differences between the land and the sea. The region is also subject to seasonal "Santa Ana" winds. These are typically hot, dry northerly winds which blow offshore at 15-20 mph, but can reach speeds over 60 mph. Two types of temperature inversions (warmer air on top of cooler air) are created in the area: subsidence and radiational. The subsidence inversion is a regional effect created by the Pacific high in which air is heated as it is compressed when it flows from the high pressure area to the low pressure areas inland. This type of inversion generally forms at about 1,000 to 2,000 feet and can occur throughout the year, but it is most evident during the summer months. Surface inversions are formed by the more rapid cooling of air near the ground during the night, especially during winter. Both types of inversions limit the dispersal of air pollutants within the regional airshed, with the more stable the air (low wind speeds, uniform temperatures), the lower the amount of pollutant dispersion. Air Quality Air quality is determined by measuring ambient concentrations of air pollutants that are known to have adverse health effects. For regulatory purposes, there are several air pollutants for which standards have been set. These pollutants are generally recognized as "criteria pollutants." For most criteria pollutants, regulations and standards have been in effect, in varying degrees, for more than 25 years, and control strategies are designed to ensure that the ambient concentrations do not exceed certain thresholds. Another class of air pollutants that are subject to regulatory requirements is called hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) or air toxics. Substances that are especially harmful to health, such as those considered under U.S. EPA's hazardous air pollutant program or California's air toxics programs are considered to be air toxics. Regulatory air quality standards are based on scientific and medical research. These standards establish minimum concentrations of an air pollutant in the ambient air that could start to cause adverse health effects. For air toxics emissions, however, the regulatory process usually assesses the potential impacts to public health in terms of "risk" (such as the Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Program in California), or the emissions may be controlled by prescribed technologies (as in the Federal approach for controlling hazardous air pollutants). Inert Pollutants Criteria pollutants that are considered to be inert include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), PM10, lead, sulfates and hydrogen sulfide (H2S).


5.4 Air Quality

Carbon monoxide is formed primarily by the incomplete combustion of organic fuels. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of the California and National 1-hour and 8-hour CO standards. Nitric oxide (NO) is a colorless gas formed during combustion processes which rapidly oxidizes to form NO2, a brownish gas. The highest nitrogen dioxide values are generally measured in urbanized areas with heavy traffic. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment for all the California and National nitrogen dioxide standards. Sulfur dioxide is a gas produced primarily from the combustion of sulfurous fuels by stationary sources and by mobile sources. San Luis Obispo County has been in attainment of the California and national sulfur dioxide standards over the past ten years. The two classes of particulate matter (PM) are PM10 (coarse particulate matter less than 10 microns in aerodynamic diameter), and PM2.5 (fine particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in aerodynamic diameter). Both consist of many different types of particles that vary in their chemical activity and toxicity. PM2.5 tends to be a greater health risk because it cannot be removed from the lungs once it is deeply inhaled. The largest PM emissions appear to originate from soils (via roads, construction, agriculture, and natural windblown dust). Other sources of PM include sea salt, particulate matter released during combustion processes, such as those in gasoline and diesel vehicles, and wood burning. Also, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) are precursors in the formation of secondary PM. San Luis Obispo County is designated as non-attainment of the California PM10 standard. Lead is a heavy metal that in ambient air occurs as a lead oxide aerosol or dust. Because lead is no longer added to gasoline or paint products, lead emissions have reduced substantially in recent years. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment with the NAAQS and the CAAQS for lead. Sulfates are aerosols (i.e., wet particulate) that are formed by sulfur oxides in moist environments. They exist in the atmosphere as sulfuric acid and sulfate salts. The primary source of sulfate is from the combustion of sulfurous fuels. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment for the California sulfate standard. Hydrogen sulfide is an odorous, toxic, gaseous compound that can be detected by humans at very low concentrations. The gas is produced during the decay of organic material and is also found naturally in petroleum. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of the H2S standard.


5.4 Air Quality

Photochemical Pollutants Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a source, but rather is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the amount of these precursors. In San Luis Obispo County, the major sources of ROG are motor vehicles, organic solvents, the petroleum industry, and pesticides; and the major sources of NOx are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various industrial sources. On April 28, 2005, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved the nation's most health protective ozone standard with special consideration for children's health. The new 8-hour-average standard at 0.070 parts per million (ppm) will further protect California's most vulnerable population from the adverse health effects associated with ground-level ozone. Based on monitoring data, San Luis Obispo County has been deemed in non-attainment for the new ozone standard. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are hazardous air pollutants that are known or suspected to cause cancer, genetic mutations, birth defects, or other serious illnesses to people. TACs may be emitted from three main source categories: (1) industrial facilities; (2) internal combustion engines (stationary and mobile); and (3) small "area sources" (such as solvent use). CARB publishes lists of Volatile Organic Compound species profiles for many industrial applications and substances. Generally, TACs behave in the atmosphere in the same general way as inert pollutants (those that do not react chemically but preserve the same chemical composition from point of emission to point of impact). The concentrations of toxic pollutants are therefore determined by the quantity and concentration emitted at the source and the meteorological conditions encountered as the pollutants are transported away from the source. Thus, impacts from toxic pollutant emissions tend to be site-specific and their intensity is subject to constantly changing meteorological conditions. Asbestos has been identified by the State Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine is a very common rock type in the state and was identified by the Board as having the potential to contain naturally occurring asbestos. Under the State Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities at the site, a geologic analysis will be necessary to determine if serpentine rock is present. If naturally occurring asbestos is found at


5.4 Air Quality

the site an Asbestos Health and Safety Program and an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan is required to be approved by the District before construction begins. Serpentine-rich rock (serpentinite) and soil units constitute a significant impact where they contain a magnesium-silicate mineral called Chrysotile. Chrysotile typically occurs in veins of silky fibers and is an important source of commercial asbestos. Airborne asbestos fibers are known to cause risk to human health, and the potential exists for human exposure during excavation of serpentine-rich rock and soil units. Review of the geologic map of the Santa Margarita area shows a band of "serpentinized" Franciscan melange, with occasional genuine serpentine rocks occurring within the Nacimiento Fault Zone (Figure 5.2-1, Geologic Map) The surface exposures are from approximately 500 to 1,500 feet wide, beginning in the Miller Flat area and running south-eastward along the flank of the Santa Lucia Range and beyond the southern boundary of the Santa Margarita Ranch. Several minor outcrops occur along the west side of Miller Flat and near the cemetery east of the town of Santa Margarita, and one outcrop within the town itself. The band of Franciscan melange reappears as a narrow strip to the northwest which is intersected by Santa Margarita Creek, just south of the Asistencia, and again as a narrow strip running northwest from the Asistencia through some low hills to U.S. 101. Greenhouse Gas Constituent gases of the Earth’s atmosphere called atmospheric greenhouse gases (GHG) play a critical role in the Earth’s radiation budget by trapping infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface, which would otherwise have escaped into space. Prominent GHGs contributing to this process include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. This phenomenon, known as the Greenhouse Effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate. Anthropogenic emissions of these GHGs that are in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for the enhancement of the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s natural climate, known as global warming or climate change. Emissions of these gases that induce global warming are attributable to human activities associated with industrial/manufacturing, utilities, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Transportation is responsible for 41 percent of the State’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation. Pumping, treating, and distributing water and wastewater, including the State Water project, accounts for 20% of the electricity used in California. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Worldwide, California is the 12th to 16th largest emitter of CO2 and is responsible for approximately 2 percent of the world’s CO2 emissions. In 2004, California produced 497 million gross metric tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent.


5.4 Air Quality

Current Ambient Air Quality The nearest air monitoring station to Santa Margarita is located on Lewis Avenue in the City of Atascadero, approximately eight miles north of the community of Santa Margarita. This station measures ozone, PM10, CO, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). Exhibit 5.4-1 summarizes the available annual air quality data for the local airshed. As described therein, this monitoring station has recorded one exceedance of State standards for ozone in 2005 and one exceedance of State standards for PM10 in 2003. However, this monitoring station has not recorded exceedances of State or federal standards for NOx over the years 2003-2005, inclusive, or for CO between 2003 and 2004 (CO monitoring ceased in June 2004).

Exhibit 5.4-1 Ambient Air Quality Data at the Atascadero Monitoring Station

Pollutant 2003 2004 2005

Ozone, ppm — Worst Hour 0.093 0.085 0.096

Number of days of State exceedances (>0.09 ppm) 0 0 1

Number of days of Federal exceedances (>0.12 ppm) 0 0 0 Particulate Matter <10 microns, ug/m3 Worst 24 Hours 58 42 45

Number of samples of State exceedances (>50 µg/m3 ) 1 0 0

Number of samples of Federal exceedances (>150 µg/m3 ) 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide (ppm), Highest 8-Hour Average 1.46 1.25 ND

Number of days of State exceedances (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 ND Number of days of Federal exceedances (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 ND

Nitrogen Dioxide (ppm), Worst Hour 0.063 0.051 0.052 Number of days of State exceedances (>0.25 ppm) 0 0 0

Source: CARB, Annual Air Quality Data Summaries, 2003-2005. As noted above, San Luis Obispo County is in nonattainment for State ozone and PM10 levels. In 2005 the Atascadero Monitoring Station had one violation of the State 1-hour ozone standard and would have had at least three violations of the current 8-hour standard. The station also had one exceedance of the State PM10

standard between 2003 and 2005. Ambient PM10 concentrations have been primarily a localized issue of concern in the southern portion of San Luis Obispo County, providing the major impetus for the County's non-attainment designation for the State PM10 standard. The major sources for PM10 are mineral quarries, grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, and vehicle exhaust. PM10 levels in the Santa Margarita area are primarily due to agricultural tilling, road dust, motor vehicle emissions, and the sand and gravel quarry located northeast of the community. 5.4.2 Regulatory Setting Both the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards for the protection of public health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency designated to administer air quality


5.4 Air Quality

regulation, while the California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state equivalent in the California Environmental Protection Agency. Local control in air quality management is provided by the CARB through regional-level Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs). The CARB has established air quality standards and is responsible for the control of mobile emission sources, while the local APCDs are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The CARB has established 14 air basins statewide. The U.S. EPA has set primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, suspended particulates (PM10) and lead. In addition, the State of California has established health-based ambient air quality standards for these and other pollutants, which are more stringent than the federal standards. Exhibit 5.4-2 shows the federal and state primary standards for the major pollutants.

Exhibit 5.4-2 Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standards California Standard

1-Hour --- 0.09 PPM Ozone

8-Hour 0.08 PPM 0.070 PPM 8-Hour 9.0 PPM 9.0 PPM

Carbon Monoxide 1-Hour 35.0 PPM 20.0 PPM Annual 0.053 PPM 0.030 PPM

Nitrogen Dioxide 1-Hour --- 0.18 PPM Annual 0.030 PPM --- 24-Hour 0.14 PPM 0.04 PPM Sulfur Dioxide 1-Hour --- 0.25 PPM Annual --- 20 µg/m3

PM10 24-Hour 150 µg/m3 50 µg/m3 Annual 15 µg/m3 12 µg/m3

PM2.5 24-Hour 35 µg/m3 * 30-Day Average --- 1.5 µg/m3

Lead 3-Month Average 1.5 µg/m3 ---

* No separate State standard ppm = parts per million µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Source: ARB, February 22, 2007 Federal, State, and local agencies have established standards and regulations that may affect the proposed project. A summary of the regulatory setting for air quality is provided below. Federal Regulations The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 directs the attainment and maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 1990 Amendments to this Act included new provisions that address air emissions that affect local, regional and global air quality. The main elements of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments are summarized below:


5.4 Air Quality

Title I Attainment and maintenance of NAAQS Title II Motor vehicles and fuel reformulation Title Ill Hazardous air pollutants Title IV Acid deposition Title V Facility operating permits Title VI Stratospheric ozone protection Title VII Enforcement

The EPA is responsible for implementing the Federal Clean Air Act and establishing the NAAQS for criteria pollutants. In 1997, the EPA adopted revisions to the Ozone and Particulate Matter Standards contained in the Clean Air Act. These revisions included a new 8-hour ozone standard and a new particulate matter standard for particles below 2.5 microns in diameter. These standards were suspended, however, when in May 1999 the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia remanded the new ozone standard. In January 2001, the EPA issued a Proposed Response to Remand, where it stated that the revised ozone standard should remain at 0.08 ppm. In February 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Clean Air Act as the EPA had interpreted it in setting health-protective air quality standards for ground-level ozone and particulate matter. Recent Air Quality Standards Actions In 2006, EPA tightened the 24-hour PM2.5 standard from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 and retained the existing annual standard of 15 μg/m3. The EPA promulgated a new 8-hour standard for ozone on March 12, 2008, effective March 27, 2008. In addition, the EPA is proposing to revise the lead standard to within the range of 0.10 μg/m3 to 0.30 μg/m3, and is currently holding public hearings and accepting comments. State Regulations The California Air Resources Board (CARB) establishes the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). Comparison of the criteria pollutant concentrations in ambient air to the CAAQS determines State attainment status for criteria pollutants. CARB has jurisdiction over all air pollutant sources in the State; it has delegated to local air districts the responsibility for stationary sources and has retained authority for emissions from mobile sources. CARB, in partnership with the local air quality management districts within California has developed a pollutant monitoring network to aid attainment of CAAQS. The network consists of numerous monitoring stations located throughout the State, which monitor and report various pollutant concentrations in ambient air. CARB revised the PM standard in 2002, pursuant to the Children's Environmental Health Protection Act. The revised PM10 standard is 20 μg/m3 for an annual average. In addition, CARB adopted a fine PM (PM2.5) standard


5.4 Air Quality

(particles with a mean aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 microns or less), set at 12 μg/m3 for an annual average. California Clean Air Act (CCAA) (California Health and Safety Code, Division 26). This act went into effect on January 1,1989, and was amended in 1992. CCAA mandates achieving the health-based CAAQS at the earliest practical date. Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (California Health & Safety Code, Division 26, Part 6). The Hot Spots Act requires an inventory of air toxics emissions from individual facilities, an assessment of health risk, and notification of potential significant health risk. The Calderon Bill (SB 1889), (California Health & Safety Code Sections 25531-25543). This bill, signed by Governor Pete Wilson in September 1996, sets forth changes in the following four areas:

1. Provides guidelines to identify a more realistic health risk 2. Requires high risk facilities to submit an air toxic emission reduction plan 3. Holds air pollution control districts accountable for ensuring that the plans

will achieve their objectives 4. Requires high risk facilities to achieve their planned emissions reduction

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Regulation The California Air Resources Board’s approved Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations requires application of best management practices to control fugitive dust in areas known to have Naturally Occurring Asbestos, and also requires notification to the local air district prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities. In addition, the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District requires submittal of a Naturally Occurring Asbestos Construction and Grading Project Form for all grading projects in serpentine rock larger than 1 acre to prior to construction and assesses review fees for all work that has the potential to disturb soil containing Naturally Occurring Asbestos. All project construction occurs in areas designated by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District as “Geologic Analysis Required.” Work in asbestos serpentine areas may require an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and may include air monitoring.


5.4 Air Quality

Climate Change Policies and Regulation There has been important legislative activity regarding global climate change and greenhouse gases in California. Although it was not originally intended to reduce greenhouse gases, California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, was first adopted in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. The latest amendments were made in October 2005 and currently require new homes to use half the energy they used only a decade ago. Energy efficient buildings require less electricity, and electricity production by fossil fuels results in greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, increased energy efficiency results in decreased greenhouse gases emissions. Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 California Assembly Bill 1493 (Pavley), enacted on July 22, 2002, required the California Air Resources Board to develop and adopt regulations that reduce greenhouse gases emitted by passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. Regulations adopted by the Board will apply to 2009 and later model year vehicles. The Board estimates that the regulation will reduce climate change emissions from the light duty passenger vehicle fleet by an estimated 18 percent in 2020 and by 27 percent in 2030. Executive Order S-3-05 California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced on June 1, 2005, through Executive Order S-3-05, the following GHG emission reduction targets: By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels

Climate Action Team To meet these targets, the Governor directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to lead a Climate Action Team made up of representatives from the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency; the Department of Food and Agriculture; the Resources Agency; the Air Resources Board; the Energy Commission; and the Public Utilities Commission. The Climate Action Team’s Report to the Governor in 2006 contains recommendations and strategies to help ensure the targets in Executive Order S-3-05 are met. The Climate Action Team report contains baseline emissions as estimated by the California Air Resources Board and the California Energy Commission. The Climate Action Team Report also contains strategies that many other California agencies can employ. The Climate Action Team published a public review draft of Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California in 2007. Most of the strategies were in the 2006 Climate Action Team Report or are similar to the 2007 Climate Action Team strategies.


5.4 Air Quality

Assembly Bill (AB) 32 In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 focuses on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in California. AB 32 requires the California Air Resources Board to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990, by 2020. The California Air Resources Board is the State agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gas that cause global warming. AB 32 requires that by January 1, 2008, the California Air Resources Board determine what the statewide GHG emissions level was in 1990, and it must approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit so it may be applied to the 2020 benchmark. The Board approved the 1990 greenhouse gas emissions level of 427 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) on December 6, 2007. Therefore, in 2020, emissions in California are required to be at or below 427 MMTCO2e. Under the current “business as usual” scenario, statewide emissions are increasing at a rate of approximately 1 percent per year as noted below. Also shown are the average reductions needed from all statewide sources (including all existing sources) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels. 1990: 427 MMTCO2e 2004: 480 MMTCO2e (11 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 AB

32 baseline) 2008: 495 MMTCO2e (14 percent reduction needed to achieve 1990 AB

32 baseline) 2020: 600 MMTCO2e Business As Usual (29 percent reduction needed to

achieve 1990 level) Early Action Measures Under AB 32, the California Air Resources Board published its Final Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California. Discrete early action measures are currently underway or are enforceable by January 1, 2010. Early action measures are regulatory or non-regulatory and are currently underway or to be initiated by the Board in the 2007 to 2012 timeframe. The Board has 44 early action measures that apply to the transportation, commercial, forestry, agriculture, cement, oil and gas, fire suppression, fuels, education, energy efficiency, electricity, and waste sectors. Of those early action measures, nine are considered discrete early action measures, as they are regulatory and enforceable by January 1, 2010. The Board estimates that the 44 recommendations are expected to result in reductions of at least 42 MMTCO2e by 2020, representing approximately 25 percent of the 2020 target.


5.4 Air Quality

Local Rules and Regulations Local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD’s) in California have jurisdiction over stationary sources in their respective areas and must adopt plans and regulations necessary to demonstrate attainment of Federal and State air quality standards. As directed by the Federal and State Clean Air Acts, local air districts are required to prepare plans with strategies for attaining and maintaining State and Federal ozone standards. In the project area, air quality rules and regulations are promulgated by the San Luis Obispo APCD. In order to ultimately achieve the air quality standards, the rules and regulations limit emissions and permissible impacts from proposed projects. Some rules also specify emission controls and control technologies for each type of emitting source. The San Luis Obispo APCD has jurisdiction over air quality attainment in the San Luis Obispo County portion of the South Central Coast Air Basin in accordance with the San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan. All aspects of the proposed project and alternatives occurring in San Luis Obispo County must obtain an APCD permit, if applicable. 5.4.3 Significance Criteria The San Luis Obispo APCD has developed guidelines for evaluating the significance of air quality impacts for proposed projects undergoing CEQA review, which are outlined in the San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Any project would be considered to have a potentially significant air quality impact if the emission levels from the proposed project were to equal or exceed any of the significance criteria set fourth in this handbook. Significance Criteria for Construction The San Luis Obispo APCD has established mitigation thresholds that apply to air emissions from construction projects. These thresholds, which are included in the San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, are listed in Exhibit 5.4-3.


5.4 Air Quality

Exhibit 5.4-3

San Luis Obispo County APCD Significance Thresholds for Construction Threshold (1)

Pollutant Daily

Quarterly Tier 1

Quarterly Tier 2

ROG + NOx (combined) 137 lbs 2.5 tons 6.3 tons

Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 7 lbs 0.13 tons 0.32 tons

Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust (2) 2.5 tons

Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4) Not Yet Established

(1) Daily and quarterly emission thresholds are based on the California Health & Safety Code and the CARB Carl Moyer Guidelines. (2) Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of worked area can exceed the 2.5 ton PM10 quarterly threshold.

Mitigation of construction activities is required when the emission thresholds are equaled or exceeded by fugitive and/or combustion emissions. In addition to the construction air quality thresholds defined above, there are a number of special conditions, local regulations or state / federal rules that apply to construction activities. These conditions must be addressed in proposed construction activity. Sensitive Receptors The proximity of sensitive individuals (receptors) to a construction site constitutes a special condition and may require a more comprehensive evaluation of toxic diesel PM impacts and if deemed necessary by the SLO County APCD, more aggressive implementation of mitigation measures than described below in the diesel idling section. Areas were sensitive receptors are most likely to spend time include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling unit(s). Sensitive receptor locations for a project need to be identified during the CEQA review process and mitigation to minimize toxic diesel PM impacts need to be defined. The types of construction projects that typically require a more comprehensive evaluation include large-scale, long-term projects that occur within 1,000 feet of a sensitive receptor location(s). Diesel Idling Restrictions for Construction Phases The APCD recognizes the public health risk reductions that can be realized by idle limitations for both on and off-road equipment. The following idle restricting measures are required for the construction phase of projects: A. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On and off-Road

Equipment:


5.4 Air Quality

1. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors

2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted 3. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible 4. Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced

at the construction site B. Idling Restrictions for On-road Vehicles Section 2485 of Title 13, the California Code of Regulations limits diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:

1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation

2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a

heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation

Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following web site: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf

C. Idling Restrictions for off-Road Equipment:

Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(3) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation:

www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind off-road equipment operators of the 5 minute idling limit.

Developmental Burning APCD regulations prohibit developmental burning of vegetative material within SLO County.


5.4 Air Quality

Permits Portable equipment and engines 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities will require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the ARB) or an Air District permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive: Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers Portable generators and equipment with engines that are 50 hp or greater Internal combustion engines Unconfined abrasive blasting operations Concrete batch plants Rock and pavement crushing Tub grinders Trommel screens

Significance Criteria for Operations San Luis Obispo County has four separate significance criteria for assessing air quality impacts from project operations:

1. Comparison to APCD emission significance thresholds 2. Consistency with the district Clean Air Plan 3. Comparison to standards 4. Special conditions

Exhibit 5.4-4 provides general guidelines for determining the significance of impacts and type of environmental analysis recommended in relation to total emissions expected from project operations. There are no significant air quality impacts associated with a project if emissions of any of the criteria pollutant are less than 10 lbs/day (50 lbs/day for CO). Thus, mitigation measures are not required. Any project which has the potential to generate 10 to 24 lbs/day of these pollutants has the potential to cause significant air quality impacts, and should be submitted to the District for review. On-site mitigation measures, following the guidelines in Section 5 of the CEQA handbook are recommended to reduce air quality impacts to a level of insignificance. If all feasible mitigation measures are incorporated into the project, and emissions are still greater than 25 lbs/day, then additional mitigation measures, including offsets, may be required depending on the level and scope of air quality impacts identified in the EIR. For carbon monoxide, emission levels equal to or exceeding 550 lbs/day should be modeled to determine their significance. If


5.4 Air Quality

emissions are 25 tons per year or more, in addition to the above measures, offsets or offsite mitigation may be required.

Exhibit 5.4-4 San Luis Obispo County APCD Significance Thresholds for Operations

Pollutant Threshold Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 ROC NOx SO2 PM10

< 10 lbs/day 10 lbs.day 25 lbs/day 25 tons/yr

CO <550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Significance Less than

significant Significant Significant Significant

Mitigation Not Required Onsite required Onsite and offsite required

(if needed)

Onsite and offsite (if needed) required

Comments ND should be

prepared Mitigated ND

should be prepared Modeling of CO

emissions, mitigated ND or EIR

EIR should be prepared

Note: ND=Negative Declaration Significance of CO emissions from vehicles is based on whether traffic associated with the proposed project would change the level-of-service (LOS) of an intersection, thereby having the potential to generate CO "hot spots". If the LOS is unaffected, vehicle emissions are assumed not to contribute to CO hot spots. A significant impact would occur if:

1. Project generated traffic would degrade the LOS at intersections to level D or worse, and

2. Sensitive receptors were located nearby, and 3. CO hot spot modeling indicates thresholds would be exceeded.

Significance Criteria for Health Risks The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District has established criteria for determining the significance of potential health risks associated with toxic emissions from a project. These criteria have been developed for both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic compounds, as well as for acute and chronic exposure as follows:

Exhibit 5.4-5 Air Pollution Control District Health Risk Criterion

Potential Health Risk Criterion Cancer Risk 10 in one million (1 x 10-5) Health Hazard Index 1.0 A cancer risk of 10 in one million represents the number of potential excess cancer cases (10) per million individuals exposed, or an individual's chance for contracting cancer of 1 in 100,000. The health hazard index is the cumulative


5.4 Air Quality

ratio of the estimated exposure level to a chemical-specific health threshold. The health hazard index is the sum of the ratios for all chemicals present. Therefore, potential health hazards can be significant even if the threshold for a single chemical is not exceeded, but the sum of the exposure ratios exceeds one. Significance Criteria for Greenhouse Gas/Climate Change The California Environmental Quality Act requires lead agencies to evaluate potential environmental effects based to the fullest extent possible on scientific and factual data. Significance conclusions must be based on substantial evidence, which includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts. Senate Bill 97 in 2007 set up a requirement for the Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit guidelines to help establish thresholds for greenhouse gases. This has not yet been accomplished. In a recent Technical Advisory (OPR 2008), the OPR provides their perspective on the emerging role of addressing climate change in CEQA documents but fails to include a suggested threshold of significance. In lieu of OPR guidance, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7 indicates, “each public agency is encouraged to develop and publish thresholds of significance that the agency uses in the determination of the significance of environmental effects.” Therefore, for the analyses used in this EIR to determine whether climate change impacts are significant environmental effects, the following threshold is used: Does the Project comply with the provisions of an adopted Greenhouse

Gas Reduction Plan or Strategy? If no such Plan or Strategy is applicable, would the Project significantly hinder or delay the States ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32?

5.4.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.4.4.1 Proposed Project Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or measurable increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Water pressure at the turnout is sufficient to move state water into the CSA 23 distribution system; therefore no substantial increases in energy use would occur. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated. The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system.


5.4 Air Quality

Construction of the turnout and pipeline would involve the use of heavy construction equipment and concrete delivery trucks, and would generate additional worker traffic. However, as shown in Exhibit 5.4-7, the air quality impacts of the construction phase of the proposed project clearly are well below the thresholds shown in Exhibit 5.4-3 when calculated using the screening emission rates for construction operations shown in Exhibit 5.4-6 The calculations in Exhibit 5.4-5 assume that four pieces of construction equipment would be required: A backhoe, loader, dump truck and concrete truck. The duration of the project would range from two to three weeks, however, the majority of the construction effort would involve pipe laying and the installation of valves and other equipment in the turnout structure. Heavy equipment use would be limited to excavation for the pipeline and turnout, pouring concrete at the turnout, backfilling the excavations, and hauling of materials (pipe bedding sands etc.) to the site. Exhibit 5.4-8 provides the overall air quality impact summary for the project.

Exhibit 5.4-6 Screening Emission Rates for Construction Operations

Pollutant Grams/Cubic Yard of

Material Moved Lbs/Cubic Yard of Material Moved

Diesel PM 2.2 0.0049 Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 9.2 0.0203 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 42.4 0.0935

Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.75 tons/acre/month of construction activity (assuming 22 days of operation per month)

Exhibit 5.4-7

Construction Operation Impacts Pollutant

Lbs/Cubic Yd of Material Moved

Cubic Yds of Material Moved

Result Threshold

Diesel PM 0.0049 148 0.73 lbs 7.00 lbs/day Reactive Organic Gases (ROG)

0.0203 148 3.00 lbs

Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) 0.0935 148 13.84 lbs 137.00 lbs/day

Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.75 tons/acre/month 0.028 tons 2.5 tons/qtr

Traffic Air Quality Impacts Project construction generated traffic would involve less than ten vehicles on the road at any given time therefore, no change in traffic related air quality in the area is expected. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Excavation for the installation of the pipeline and turnout may encounter soils derived from serpentine bearing rock. Although the area of disturbance is less than 1 acre (8,224 square feet), and while the presence of these soil types together with naturally occurring asbestos is unlikely given the predominance of


5.4 Air Quality

sandy soils derived from a different geologic formation, precautionary mitigation measures are advisable. Sensitive Receptors The project would occur within 250 feet of the nearest residences. While diesel particulate and other emissions are well below the applicable thresholds, the proximity to sensitive receptors requires mitigation. Greenhouse Gas The greenhouse gases of concern for the construction phase of the project include carbon dioxide (CO2) and Nitrous Oxides (NOx). No measurable additional local greenhouse gas generation would occur from operation of the project, however, a small increment of additional greenhouse gases would be generated by the additional electricity needed to pump the water through the State Water pipeline. Given the volume of water pumped (80 acre feet in drought years, 5 acre feet in normal years) for the project in relation to the volume pumped through the coastal branch of the State Water Project (up to 43,908 acre feet), the additional electricity needed, and consequently the additional greenhouse gases generated, is clearly less than significant. Construction greenhouse gas emissions are similarly limited given the short duration of the construction period (two to three weeks) and the limited amount of equipment and personnel needed to construct the project. Therefore, the project would not significantly hinder or delay the State’s ability to meet the reduction targets contained in AB 32. Mitigation Measures AQ-1: Project contract documents will include the following dust control

measures: a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD


5.4 Air Quality

g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114 j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible

All PM10 mitigation measures required must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the County should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to initiation of construction.

AQ-2: Prior to any grading activities associated with the project, the County will ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the Air Pollution Control District. If NOA is found at the site, the County will comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. AQ-3: Project contract documents will include the following idling restrictions near sensitive receptors for both on and off-road equipment:

1. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors

2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted 3. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible 4. Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced

at the construction site AQ-4: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:


5.4 Air Quality


1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal

2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate

3. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted

4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's construction phase thresholds

5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance

6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering Division at 781-5912. Because the air emissions associated with the construction of the proposed project fall well below the thresholds established by the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, the operational phase of the project would result in no additional air emissions above those currently existing, and the project incorporates all feasible standard air quality measures recommended by the Air Pollution Control District, the project would have no significant air quality impacts.

5.4 Air Quality

Exhibit 5.4-8 Construction Air Quality Data

Emission Factors (lbs/hr)

Construction Equipment No.

Daily Usage

Daily Hours

Duration (Days)

Duration (Qtrs) CO ROC NOx SO2 PM10

Backhoe 1 0.5 8 4 0.06 0.35 0.12 1.26 0.14 0.11Concrete Truck 1 0.25 8 2 0.03 1.79 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26Dump Truck 1 0.5 8 4 0.06 1.79 0.19 4.17 0.45 0.26Loader 1 0.5 8 4 0.06 0.57 0.25 1.89 0.18 0.17

Peak Daily Emissions (lbs/day)

Construction Equipment CO ROC NOx SO2 PM10 Backhoe 1.40 0.48 5.04 0.56 0.44Concrete Truck 3.58 0.38 8.34 0.90 0.52Dump Truck 7.16 0.76 16.68 1.80 1.04Loader 2.28 1.00 7.56 0.72 0.68

Totals: 14.42 2.62 37.62 3.98 2.68Quarterly Emissions (tons/qtr)

Construction Equipment CO ROC NOx SO2 PM10 Backhoe 0.0028 0.00096 0.01008 0.00112 0.00088Concrete Truck 0.00358 0.00038 0.00834 0.0009 7.8E-06Dump Truck 0.01432 0.00152 0.03336 0.0036 3.12E-05Loader 0.00456 0.002 0.01512 0.00144 2.04E-05

Totals: 0.02526 0.00486 0.0669 0.00706 0.000939Material Excavated/moved Area Disturbed:

Pipeline 43 yd3 excavated 40 yd3 backfill Pipeline 1625 ft2 Turnout 50 yd3 excavated 15yd3 backfill Turnout 1600 ft2 Total yd3 for project: 148yd3 Staging 5000 ft2 Total ft2 for project: 8224 ft2


5.4 Air Quality

5.4.4.2 Water Conservation No adverse air quality impacts would be generated by the water conservation alternative. 5.4.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Air quality impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.4]. The Nacimiento Water Project resulted in significant unavoidable air quality impacts as a result of construction activities, even with the application of numerous mitigation measures. Option A: The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. The 3-mile segment would likely generate nearly 250 times the emissions of the proposed project, based on a comparison of pipeline length (65 feet vs 15,840 feet). Construction emissions would likely exceed the district’s thresholds and would require mitigation similar to that for the proposed project, and would likely mitigate air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Option B: Pipeline connections between the community and producing wells on the Santa Margarita Ranch, and connections between the Nacimiento Water Line and the Ranch’s irrigation facilities, would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. With the application of the listed measures, the air quality impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Option C: Pipeline connections between the Nacimiento Water Line, the new treatment plant, and the community water distribution system would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. With the application of the listed measures, the air quality impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level.


5.4 Air Quality

5.4.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternatives would involve the installation of one or more additional wells, which typically requires the use of diesel powered drilling equipment. It is unlikely that the emissions generated by a single drilling operation, even with the use of one or two smaller support type pieces of construction equipment, would exceed air district daily thresholds. Mitigation measures would be the same as those required for the proposed project. It is also unlikely that more than one well drilling operation would occur at one time, given the financial costs associated with drilling municipal wells. Operationally, new wells would be fitted with electric pumps. Therefore, the air quality impacts associated with the groundwater pumping alternative could be mitigated to less than significant levels. 5.4.4.5 No Project No adverse air quality impacts would be generated by the no-project alternative. 5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to air quality were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as the CSA 23 Waterline Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative air quality impacts. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant air quality concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically result in initially high air quality impacts due to construction, with on-going operational impacts resulting from increased traffic and other urban/residential activities. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in long-term air quality impacts as a result of increases in vehicular activity levels associated with the more intensive agricultural use of the property. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Air quality impacts from construction, together with higher traffic generation rates, will contribute to diminished air quality in the area.


5.4 Air Quality


However, because the project’s air quality impacts are limited to the construction period, the long-term cumulative impact is not considered cumulatively considerable, and is therefore less than significant.

5.5 Noise

5.5 NOISE

5.5 Noise This section describes the noise currently in the vicinity of the proposed project and the potential impacts associated with this project. 5.5.1 Environmental Setting Noise is defined as unwanted sound that is heard by people or wildlife and that interferes with normal activities or otherwise diminishes the quality of the environment. Sources of noise may be transient (e.g., the passing of a train or aircraft through the area) or continuous (e.g., the hum of distant traffic or the operation of air conditioning equipment). Sources of noise may have a broad range of sounds and be generally nondescript or have a specific, readily identifiable sound, such as a car horn. The sources of noise may also be steady or impulsive. These characteristics all bear on the perception of the acoustic environment. Noise is usually measured as sound level on a logarithmic decibel (dB) scale, with the frequency spectrum adjusted by the A-weighting network. The dB is a unit division on a logarithmic scale that represents the intensity of sound relative to the reference intensity near the threshold of normal human hearing. The A-weighting network is a filter that approximates the response of the human ear at moderate sound levels. The resulting unit of measure is the A-weighted decibel (dBA). To analyze the overall noisiness of an area, noise events are combined for an instantaneous value or averaged over a specific time period (e.g., one hour, multiple hours, and 24 hours). The time-weighted measure is referred to as Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). The equivalent sound level is defined as the same amount of sound energy averaged over a given time period. The percentage of time that a given sound level is exceeded can also be represented. For example, L10 is a sound level that is exceeded 10% of the time over a specified period. Wildlife response to noise is dependent not only on the magnitude but also the characteristic of the sound, or the sound frequency distribution. Wildlife is affected by a broader range of sound frequencies than humans. Noise is known to affect an animal's physiology and behavior, and chronic noise-induced stress is deleterious to an animal's energy budget, reproductive success, and long-term survival. Human response to noise is dependent not only on the magnitude but also on the characteristic of the sound, or the sound frequency distribution. Generally, the human ear is more susceptible to higher frequency sounds than lower frequency sounds. This is reflected in the A-weighting which essentially assigns a


5.5 Noise

weighting of zero to sounds with a frequency below 10 cycles per second and has a maximum weighting for sounds with a frequency in the 2,000 to 5,000 cycles per-second range. Human response to noise is also dependent on the time of day and expectations based on location and other factors. For example, a person sleeping at home might react differently to the sound of a car horn than to the same sound while driving during the day. The regulatory process has attempted to account for these factors by developing overall noise ratings such as Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the Day-Night Average Noise Level (Ldn) which incorporate penalties for noise occurring at night. The Ldn rating is an average of noise over a 24-hour period in which noises occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. are increased by 10 dBA. The CNEL is similar but also adds a weighting of 3 dBA to noises that occur between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Average noise levels over daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) are represented as Ld and nighttime noises as Ln. Exhibit 5.5-1 is a scale showing typical noise levels encountered in common daily activities. The effects of noise are considered in two ways: how a proposed project may increase existing noise levels and affect surrounding land uses; and how a proposed land use may be affected by existing surrounding land uses. The Noise Element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan focuses on particular types of land uses when measuring the effects of noise. These "sensitive receptors" include residences, transient lodging (e.g., hotels, motels), hospitals, nursing homes, convalescent hospitals, schools, libraries, offices, churches, public assembly places, and outdoor sports and recreation facilities.


5.5 Noise

Exhibit 5.5-1 Common Environmental Noise Levels

Common Outdoor

Noise Levels

Noise Level (dBA)

Common Indoor Noise Levels

Jet flyover at 1,000 feet Gas Lawnmower at 3 feet Diesel truck at 50 feet Noisy Urban Daytime Gas Lawnmower at 50 feet Commercial area Heavy Traffic at 300 feet Quiet Urban Daytime Quiet Urban Nighttime Quiet Suburban Nighttime Quiet Rural Nighttime

110

I I I

100 I I I

90 I I I

80 I I I

70 I I I

60 I I I

50 I I I

40 I I I

30 I I I

20 I I I

10 I I I 0

Rock band Inside New York Subway Train Food Blender at 3 feet Garbage Disposal at 3 feet Shouting at 3 feet Vacuum Cleaner at 10 feet Normal speech at 3 feet Large business office Dishwasher next room Small Theater, Large Conference Room (background) Library Bedroom at night Concert Hall (Background) Broadcast and Recording Studio Threshold of Hearing


5.5 Noise

5.5.2 Regulatory Setting Noise is regulated at the Federal, State, and local levels through regulations, policies, and/or local ordinances. Local policies are commonly adaptations of Federal and State guidelines, based on prevailing local conditions or special requirements. These guidelines have been developed at the federal level by the EPA, the Federal Highway Administration and Department of Transportation; and at the State level by the now defunct California Office of Noise Control and by Caltrans. San Luis Obispo County The applicable noise standards for the project are those established by San Luis Obispo County in the Noise Element of the County General Plan. County ordinances do not define acceptable sound level limits for construction. However, County Land Use Ordinance section 22.10.120A4 exempts construction activities from noise standards between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. The Noise Element of the General Plan establishes the following guideline:

"The existing or projected future noise exposure at the exterior of buildings which will contain noise-sensitive uses or within proposed outdoor activity areas (other than outdoor sports and recreation uses) does not exceed 65 dB Ldn (or CNEL) prior to mitigation. For outdoor sports and recreation uses, the existing or projected future noise exposure may not exceed 75 dB Ldn (or CNEL) prior to mitigation. "

Policy No. 3.3.3 of the Noise Element states:

"Noise created by new transportation noise sources, including roadway improvement projects, shall be mitigated so as not to exceed the levels specified . . . within outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise- sensitive uses. "

Policy No. 3.3.5 of the Noise Element states:

"Noise created by new proposed stationary noise sources or existing stationary noise sources which undergo modifications that may increase noise levels shall be made as follows and shall be the responsibility of the developer or the stationary noise source: "...b) Noise levels shall be reduced to or below the noise level standards . . . where the stationary noise source will expose an existing noise-sensitive use... to noise levels which exceed the standards. When the affected noise-sensitive land use is Outdoor


5.5 Noise

Sports and Recreation, the noise level standards shall be increased by 10 dB. "

Vibration San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance 22.10.170 establishes vibration standards. It states that any land use conducted in or within one-half mile of an urban or village reserve line is to be operated to not produce detrimental earth-borne vibrations perceptible at the lot line for a residential or office source or the boundary of the industrial category for an industrial source. However, these standards do not apply to vibrations from construction, the demolition of structures, surface mining activities or geological exploration between 7.00 A.M. and 9.00 P.M., or vibrations from moving sources such as trucks and railroads. These vibration sources are not regulated. 5.5.3 Significance Criteria There are two criteria for judging noise impacts. First, noise levels for the proposed project must comply with relevant Federal, State, or local standards or regulations. Noise impacts to the surrounding community are enforced through the local noise ordinance and supported by nuisance complaints and subsequent investigation. They provide a basis for defining potential significant impacts, which would be caused by one of the following:

Construction. If construction occurs outside the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays and, presumably, construction noise can be heard at the property line of any receiving location.

Operations. If noise levels from stationary sources produced by a project

and experienced by sensitive receptors exceed the levels in County ordinances. For residential areas, the hourly thresholds are 65 dBA during the day and 50/55 dBA (Office and Professional/Suburban and Recreation) during the night. For commercial retail areas, the hourly threshold is 75 dBA during both day and night. For commercial service and industrial areas, the hourly threshold is 80 dBA for both day and night.

Adopted noise element policies, standards, or ordinances would be

exceeded in magnitude, timing, or duration. The second criterion for measuring project impact is the increase in noise level above the existing ambient level as a result of a new noise source. The degree of impact is hard to assess because of the highly subjective character of individuals' reactions to changes in noise. Most people begin to notice changes in environmental noise levels at approximately 5 dBA. Typically, changes in noise level less than 5 dBA cannot be definitely considered an adverse impact. For


5.5 Noise

noise changes greater than 5 dBA, it is difficult to quantify the impact beyond recognizing that greater noise changes would result in greater impacts. In community noise impact analysis, long-term noise increases of 5 to 10 dBA are considered to have "some impact." Noise level increases of more than 10 dBA are generally considered severe. In the case of short term noise increase, such as those from construction activities, the 10 dBA threshold between "some" and "severe" is replaced with a criterion of 15 dBA. These noise-averaged thresholds should be lowered when the noise level fluctuates, when the noise has an irritating character such as considerable high frequency energy, or if it is accompanied by subsonic vibration. In these cases, the impact must be individually estimated.

5.5.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.5.4.1 Proposed Project Noise impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Water pressure at the turnout is sufficient to move state water into the CSA 23 distribution system, therefore, no new pumping facilities would be installed. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated. Noise generated by construction of the 65 feet of pipeline and turnout would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels. This increase would be limited to the daytime hours and to the duration of the construction phase of the project (estimated to last two to three weeks). Within 500 feet of the pipeline alignment, construction noise levels would measure approximately 75 dBA. This increase would result in a change of at least 20 dBA over the baseline noise levels. These short-term impacts would occur to residential uses located within the vicinity of the work, and not otherwise shielded by topography or other residences. Approximately 19 residences (15 mobile homes and 4 houses) would be directly impacted, with another 25 mobile homes and three houses partially impacted by the construction noise. Mitigation measures for potential noise impacts include the following: N-1: Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. Non-noise generating construction activities such as interior painting are not subject to these restrictions.


5.5 Noise

N-2: Provide two-week advance notice to residences within 500 feet of the construction site. The announcements shall state where and when construction will be scheduled. It shall also provide tips on reducing noise intrusion, e.g. closing windows facing the construction area. N-3: Maintain proper mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines to reduce noise to the maximum extent feasible. With the application of the mitigation measures listed above, identified significant temporary construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to insignificance. 5.5.4.2 Water Conservation No adverse noise impacts would be generated by the water conservation alternative. 5.5.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential noise impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.5]. Overall, the project would have significant but mitigable noise impacts as a result of construction and operational activities. Mitigation measures specified for the Nacimiento Water Project address temporary construction impacts as well as the long-term noise impacts from pumps and similar equipment. The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. However, overall noise impacts due to construction were evaluated on a reach-by-reach basis with the communities of Santa Margarita and Garden Farms included in the “Rocky Canyon Road to Santa Margarita” reach. Pipeline construction passed within 500 feet of approximately 130 residences and several commercial and industrial businesses. Noise mitigation proposed in the Nacimiento EIR limited construction to daylight hours (as required by County noise ordinances) and added noise barriers at specific noise sensitive receptors along the route. Option A: The approximate 3-mile segment connecting Santa Margarita to Atascadero would likely generate significant construction noise impacts, especially to residential uses in Garden Farms. However, application of the same noise mitigation specified in the Nacimiento EIR would reduce these impacts to less than significant.


5.5 Noise

Option B: Pipeline connections between the community and producing wells on the Santa Margarita Ranch, and connections between the Nacimiento Water Project and the Ranches irrigation facilities, would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento Water Project. With the application of the listed measures, the noise impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Option C: Pipeline connections between the Nacimiento Water Project, the new treatment plant, and the community water distribution system would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the proposed project, which are also those established for the other portions of the Nacimiento pipeline. With the application of the listed measures, the noise impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a level of insignificance. 5.5.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries, which typically requires the use of diesel powered drilling equipment. It is likely that the noise generated by a drilling operation would raise the ambient noise level at nearby residences by at least 20 dBA. However, well drilling would fall under the ordinance definition of “construction” and would be expected to abide by the same hourly restrictions as any other construction project. It is unlikely that more than one well drilling operation would occur at one time, given the financial costs associated with drilling municipal wells. Operationally, new wells would be fitted with electric pumps. Mitigation measures would be the same as those specified for the proposed project. Therefore, noise impacts associated with the groundwater alternatives are considered significant but mitigable. 5.5.4.5 No Project No adverse noise impacts would be generated by the no-project alternative. 5.5.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to noise were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of


5.5 Noise


the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as the CSA 23 Waterline Project, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative noise impacts. Also, these projects are located away from the proposed project location such that, if they were constructed simultaneously, the noise from one project would not be heard at the other project site. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant noise concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically result in noise impacts due to construction, with on-going operational impacts resulting from increased traffic and other urban/residential activities. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in long-term increases in noise impacts as a result of increases in vehicular activity levels associated with the more intensive agricultural use of the property. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Impacts from construction, together with higher traffic generation rates, will contribute to higher noise levels in the area. However, because the project’s noise impacts are limited to the construction period, the long-term cumulative impact is considered less than significant.

5.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

5.6 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS This section describes existing and potential sources of environmental hazards associated with the delivery of drought reliability water to the community of Santa Margarita, assesses potential impacts from these hazards, and recommends mitigation measures to reduce impacts below a level of significance. Environmental hazards are those factors that could lead to damage to natural and/or human resources. The State Water Project, Coastal Branch, provides treated and disinfected water to users via a water treatment plant at Polonio Pass. The potential environmental hazards of the water treatment process are fully analyzed in the Final EIR, State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities, County of San Luis Obispo, March 1992 (State Water EIR) [Section 4.12]. This section considers the environmental implications of the delivery of that treated water to the community of Santa Margarita, as well as the potential water pollution threats already existing in the project area. Hazards and hazardous materials information relevant to the project is contained in three key documents:

Final EIR, State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities, County of San Luis Obispo, March 1992 (State Water EIR) [Section 4.12]




December 2003 [Section 5.6] 5.6.1 Environmental Setting Disinfectants Chlorine based products (e.g., sodium hypochlorite, chloramines) are used as the primary disinfectants in treatment of both state water and ground water currently delivered to the community by CSA 23. CSA 23 uses sodium hypochlorite while the State Water Project uses chloramines. Sodium Hypochlorite Sodium hypochlorite is a clear, light greenish-yellow liquid commonly used as bleach. In water, disinfection solutions of 9 to 15% are typically used. There is



no fire hazard in storing solutions of sodium hypochlorite, however the chemical is corrosive and irritating if swallowed or ingested, causes severe irritation and bums in contact with skin or eyes. There are no exposure limits available. Transportation and storage should be in high-density polyethylene or glass-fiber-reinforced plastic tanks that conform to approved standards. Solutions typically lose 2 to 4% of their available chlorine content per month, therefore storage is typically time-limited. Chloramines Chloramines can be formed as a result of the reaction between free chlorine and ammonia. Chloramines are weaker disinfectants, especially weak for inactivating certain viruses. Therefore, typically ammonia is added downstream from initial free chlorine application so that microorganisms, including viruses, are exposed to free chlorine for a short period of time before chloramines are formed. In order to meet drinking water requirements, systems using chloramines must carry considerably higher residuals or provide longer contact time than would be necessary if they were using free chlorine. If raw water contains phenol or phenolic compounds, addition of free chlorine forms chlorophenol that has disagreeable taste and odor. Chloramines do not have this problem and therefore have an advantage over chlorine. Anhydrous Ammonia Anhydrous ammonia could be used in conjunction with chlorine for final disinfection of the treated water. Ammonia and chlorine combine to form chloramines in water, which are effective disinfectants. The ammonia also scavenges or binds the chlorine before it can react with trace organics in the water to form trihalomethanes. Ammonia is a gas at ambient temperature and pressure. Its normal boiling point is -28°F. It is a colorless material with slight flammability that is highly soluble in water. In the gaseous form, it has explosive limits of 16-25% in air by volume; however, the explosive range is seldom encountered. Mixed with oil or other combustible material, ammonia can increase the fire hazard. As a liquid, it has a specific gravity of 0.64, and, as a gas, a density approximately 0.6 times that of air. It is highly reactive with inorganic and organic acids. Ammonia is considered to be a hazardous material based on its toxicity. Exposure limits and observed health effects are listed in Exhibit 5.6-1.



Exhibit 5.6-1 Observed Health Effects and Exposure Limits of Ammonia

Health Effect Exposure Limit, ppm

Threshold Limit Value 25

Odor Threshold 1-5

Short Term Exposure Limit 35

Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health 500

Lethal Concentration (Low) by Inhalation 10,000 Note: ppm=parts of vapor per million parts of air by volume Water Pollution In this section, the potential sources of water contamination in the Santa Margarita area are discussed. Wells in the lower Trout Creek area have exhibited somewhat elevated concentrations of sodium, sulfate, pH, and total dissolved solids, and two wells were found to have water with high iron content. There have also been reports of hydrogen sulfide gas. The iron concentration in two wells exceeded the secondary drinking water standard but is below the Central Coast Basin objective of 5.0 ppm for agricultural water use. Three wells exhibited sodium concentrations that exceed the median groundwater objective with one of these wells also exceeding the objective for pH. One well exhibited sulfate and total dissolved solids above the median groundwater objective but below the secondary drinking water standard. Santa Margarita's water supply is pumped from the alluvial aquifer of Santa Margarita Creek/Yerba Buena Creek as well as from the deeper Santa Margarita formation. The alluvial aquifer averages about 50 feet deep within the boundaries of CSA-23. Historically, two wells (wells #1 and #2) developed in the late 1940s and early 1950s pumped the water from the alluvial aquifer. In 1991, the County drilled well #3 to augment Santa Margarita's municipal water supply. The well facilities also include an iron and manganese filter. In 1996, the County constructed well #4. Well #4 is located in the alluvial aquifer and replaced wells #1 and #2 for reasons including bacteria contamination of wells #1 and #2, construction that did not satisfy current regulatory requirements, and the State Department of Health Services’ determination that they were subject to the influence of surface water. There are no data concerning the absence or presence of other regulated constituents in the majority of the alluvial aquifer and, there is little reason to consider their presence to be likely. Current land uses on the Santa Margarita Ranch are limited to cattle grazing, viticulture, dry farming and two residences. Past land uses have included cattle grazing, residential, and agriculture. Beyond the Ranch, in the Santa Margarita and Garden Farms area, residential and



agricultural use is predominant. Consequently, the rural nature of the land use and the historic land use practices do not suggest that pollution of the water has been, or is, a concern. The few constituents that have been found are all naturally occurring in groundwater and their presence is likely due to natural processes (e.g., the dissolution of gypsum from rock by groundwater). Possible Water Contamination Sources There are no data that suggest that the surface water or groundwater resources of the Santa Margarita area have been polluted. Past and current land practices in the Santa Margarita area have, however, resulted in water pollution in other areas. The definition of potential point sources in this section does not imply that there is indeed any pollution as a result of this activity. Site-specific data are lacking and evaluations are necessary before it can be unequivocally established that pollution is or is not present. Waste disposal sites can be sources of pollution because of the generation of leachate in municipal wastes or because of the improper disposal of hazardous materials. There are several locations of known and suspected waste disposal sites on the Santa Margarita Ranch. An open trench near the Ranch headquarters served as the active waste disposal site for the Ranch. In addition, there are reports of two historic waste disposal sites: one on the south side of Highway 58 just southeast of the community of Santa Margarita, and the other located behind the cemetery. The largest volume of the wastes at these sites is probably paper; however food and yard wastes, glass, metals, plastics, rubber, and liquid wastes are probably also present. The leachate that is generated in these wastes is typically high in calcium, copper, chloride, iron, lead, magnesium, manganese, nitrogen, potassium, sodium, sulfate, phosphate, and zinc. Septic systems are also potential sources of contamination. The main pollutants associated with septic systems are nitrate, phosphorus, chloride, biochemical oxygen demand, and metals. Other constituents may be present. Numerous septic systems are present in the town of Santa Margarita and the Garden Farms area. The Atascadero Unified School District sewer ponds located above the elementary school are unlined and have the potential for contributing the same classes of pollutants as the septic systems. ConocoPhillips Company operates a petroleum pump station which is located along EI Camino Real, just north of Chalk Hill. This facility includes four open top floating tanks and two fixed roof tanks for heavier crude. Serving the Santa Margarita petroleum pump station is a set of parallel, 8-inch pipelines. One line can carry 28,000 barrels per day and the other line can carry between 18,000 and 25,000 barrels of oil per day. These pipelines traverse east-west across the northern end of the Ranch, roughly 500 feet north of the Ranch headquarters. It



should also be noted that a 6 to 10-inch natural gas trunk line runs along U.S. Highway 101 and Highway 58 generally within the road right-of-way. The railroad, Highway 101, Highway 58, EI Camino Real and to a lesser extent Pozo Road can all be considered transportation corridors upon which hazardous materials are likely to be carried. While the nature and the frequency of such hazards passing through the area has not been estimated, it can be asserted that such mobile hazards do exist periodically in the area, and thus the potential for accidental upsets affecting adjacent properties. Spills and leaks associated with above ground and underground storage tanks and pipelines as well as transportation corridors can be sources of pollution. Benzene, xylenes, toluene, lead, oil, and grease are common contaminants found in spill or leak areas. Again it is stressed that there is the potential for pollution from such sources but that no published information concerning actual groundwater pollution is available. 5.6.2 Regulatory Setting The handling, use, storage, treatment, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials, including management of contaminated soils and groundwater, are regulated by local, State, and Federal laws. The agencies responsible for enforcing applicable laws and regulations develop and enforce standards for the handling and cleanup of specific materials determined to pose a risk to human health or the environment. The enforcing agency at the local level for the proposed project area is the San Luis Obispo County Health Agency, Division of Environmental Health. Enforcement agencies at the State level include two branches of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The Federal enforcement agency is the US Environmental Protection Agency. A description of agency involvement in management of hazardous materials is provided below. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) The EPA is the Federal agency responsible for enforcement and implementation of Federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials; in addition, the EPA provides oversight and supervision for some site investigation/ remediation projects. For disposal of certain hazardous wastes, the EPA has developed land disposal restrictions and treatment standards. Legislation includes the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act of 1986 (RCRA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The Federal regulations are primarily codified in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR). These laws and regulations include specific requirements for facilities that handle, generate, use, store, treat,



transport, and/or dispose of hazardous materials, as well as for investigation and cleanup of contaminated property. RCRA provides Federal regulation over facilities which generate, store, transport, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste. Federal, State, and local governmental agencies identify and track hazardous waste from the point of generation to the point of disposal. Facilities that are under permit from the EPA to treat, store, and/or dispose of hazardous waste are tracked in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) database. The California Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) database consists of open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations (including surface impounds) pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) of 1972. SARA specifically addresses the management of hazardous materials by requiring public disclosure of information relating to the types and quantities of hazardous materials used at various types of facilities. Facilities must immediately report any discharge (leaks or spills) above the reportable quantity of extremely hazardous substances to local agencies in addition to State agencies. CERCLA addresses procedures to identify and clean up sites contaminated by unauthorized releases of hazardous materials. Superfund sets priorities for cleanup in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (National Contingency Plan). The National Contingency Plan includes lists of abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in CERCLIS, which the EPA updates annually. Sites which receive the highest ranking under the hazardous ranking system are placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). State Superfund legislation of 1981 provides for funds available to finance cleanup of sites that do not qualify for Federal Superfund. The Risk Management Program Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. The Amendments required the EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The rule, which built on existing industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances to develop a Risk Management Program (known as a "Risk Management Plan" or "RMP"), which includes:

Hazard assessment that details the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history of the last 5 years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative accidental releases

Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance,

monitoring, and employee training measures



Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures, and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g., the fire department) should an accident occur

According to the RMP Rule every facility that handles hazardous substances exceeding the threshold quantities has to submit a summary of the facility's RMP to the EPA. The RMP must be revised and resubmitted every 5 years. The RMP is about reducing chemical risk at the local level. This information helps local fire, police, and emergency response personnel (who must prepare for and respond to chemical accidents), and is useful to citizens in understanding the chemical hazards in communities. The EPA anticipates that making the RMPs available to the public stimulates communication between industry and the public to improve accident prevention and emergency response practices at the local level. Drinking Water Treatment Plants that handle hazardous water treatment chemicals are regulated under the RMP Rule. Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) OSHA promulgated a Process Safety Management (PSM) Standard (29 CFR 1910.119) with requirements for preventing or minimizing the consequences of catastrophic releases of toxic, reactive, flammable, or explosive chemicals. Some of the requirements of this standard include: all information pertaining to the hazardous chemicals shall be available to the employees and the employees shall be given training on the operation of equipment with hazardous materials; the employer is required to perform a process hazard analysis. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The project is located within the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB. The RWQCB is authorized by the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act of 1969 ("the Porter- Cologne Act"), to implement water quality protection laws. For example, under the Porter- Cologne Act, the discharge of waste to any area that could affect waters of the State (which includes both groundwater and surface waters) would require a permit or a waiver of the permit from the RWQCB or its umbrella agency, the State Water Resources Control Board. The RWQCB also implements some Federal water protection laws on behalf of the EPA, including issuing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for discharges to Waters of the U.S. When the quality of the groundwater or the surface waters of the State is threatened, the RWQCB has the authority to require investigations and remedial actions. In addition, the Central Coast RWQCB is the State regulatory agency that oversees the local Leaking Underground Fuel Tank (LUFT) program, which was established to regulate underground fuel tanks (UFTs). Under the LUFT program, local implementing agencies are required to permit, inspect, and oversee monitoring programs to detect leakage of hazardous materials. The RWQCB contracts locally to the San Luis Obispo County Division of Environmental Health to administer the UFT



program outside the City of San Luis Obispo and LUFT program for the entire county. CaIEPA, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) In California, the DTSC, a branch of CalEPA, works in conjunction with or in lieu of the EPA to enforce and implement specific hazardous materials laws and regulations. California has enacted its own legislation pertaining to the management of hazardous materials. The California legislation for which the DTSC has primary enforcement authority are the Hazardous Waste Control Act, a statute that primarily regulates the management of hazardous waste, and the Hazardous Substance Account Act, a statute that governs the cleanup of contaminated property and is modeled after CERCLA. Title 22 of the CCR, enacted pursuant to the Hazardous Waste Control Act, establishes criteria for identifying hazardous wastes and presents hazardous waste management requirements. These regulations are reprinted in Title 26, Toxics, of the CCR. The DTSC acts as the Lead Agency for some soil and groundwater cleanup projects. For sites where water quality is potentially endangered, the DTSC consults with the RWQCB on technical and regulatory issues. California Occupational Safety and Health Agency Worker health and safety in California is regulated by the Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Cal/OSHA standards and practices for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in Title 8 of the CCR, and include Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7 (General Industry Safety Orders) and Section 5192 (Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response). General construction regulations are found in Division 1, Chapter 4, Subchapter 4 (Construction Safety Orders). Cal/OSHA offers onsite evaluations and issues notices of violation to enforce necessary improvements to onsite health and safety practices to achieve compliance with regulations. Cal/OSHA has a more stringent PSM requirement (Title 8 CCR, §5189) than Federal OSHA. Cal/OSHA specifies lower quantities of hazardous materials handled that would trigger the PSM requirements at a facility. San Luis Obispo County Health Agency Pursuant to State law and local ordinance, the Division of Environmental Health of the San Luis Obispo County Health Agency conducts inspections to ensure proper handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and proper remediation of contaminated sites. In addition, the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of 1985 (Business Plan Act, [i.e., Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code]) requires that any business that handles or stores hazardous materials prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan (HMBP). Under this law, businesses are required to



submit inventories of onsite hazardous materials and wastes and the locations where these materials are stored and handled. This information is collected and certified by San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Department for emergency response purposes. No cities in San Luis Obispo County have adopted and implemented their own hazardous materials programs in lieu of the County program; however, the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department is a participating agency with San Luis Obispo County. The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department is responsible as a participating agency with the county for administrating the UFT program within the city. These environmental programs are collectively responsible for identification and management of facilities or sites that are known or suspected to be contaminated and/or have the potential for unauthorized releases of hazardous materials into the environment. Notwithstanding, there is the potential risk for unknown sites to exist where unauthorized releases of hazardous materials have occurred (i.e., illegal dumping). The severity and locations of these activities generally remains unknown until effects are detected through public health or environmental emergencies. There is also a potential risk for naturally occurring sources of hazardous substances (i.e., radon, lead, asbestos, and methane and hydrogen sulfide gases) in certain geologic formations. These occurrences are not required to be reported or managed under CERCLA or SARA unless there is a known or suspected threat on public health or the environment. In recent years, Federal, State, and local governmental agencies have responded to such threats through initiating environmental programs including geologic mapping of potential sources of naturally occurring hazardous substances for property development planning and zoning, improved construction standards protective of public health, and air toxic monitoring at known source areas. 5.6.3 Significance Criteria As defined in CEQA Appendix G (VIII) (the Environmental Checklist Form), a significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials effect is one in which the project would:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

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

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

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?



e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

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

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

5.6.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.6.4.1 Proposed Project Hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the proposed project could stem from construction activities as well as from operational activities. The operational phase of the project would involve the delivery of disinfected water, while construction would involve the movement of soil. The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system. Groundwater currently supplied to the community of Santa Margarita by CSA-23 is disinfected with sodium hypochlorite, added to the system at the well head(s). State water is disinfected with chloramines, added to the water at the Polonio Pass treatment plant. If the CSA-23 system were connected to the state water system, it would be necessary to convert the disinfection process at CSA-23 to allow the use of chloramines. The primary additional equipment necessary would be the addition of a small ammonia tank, together with the mechanism to introduce the disinfectants into the system. All new equipment would fit into existing treatment/pump buildings. As the amounts of chemicals are small, and all processes are strictly regulated to protect the public health, the change in disinfection processes is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts. An accidental release of large quantities of treated water into a fresh water body could be harmful to the organisms in the water body. Treated water would contain residual chlorine (in the form of chlorine or chloramines) as required by the drinking water regulations. Residual chlorine could be harmful to many organisms and plants depending on the concentration. If a treated water pipeline ruptures, chlorine-containing water could be released into fresh water bodies (e.g., rivers, creeks), where sensitive aquatic organisms and small animals could



be harmed. The nature of the receiving environment will also have an influence on the potential impact of a treated water release. Chlorine or any other disinfection chemicals are oxidants and will react very quickly with sunlight, atmosphere, and a range of materials that may be present in soil or a water body, such as organic matter. This means that some bodies of water may show no effect from a spill of treated water because neutralizing materials are present, while release of treated water to another water body may result in an impact. Generally, as the organic content and/or suspended solids content of a water body increases, the ability to neutralize disinfection chemicals also increases. If the treated water is not released directly into a water body, the chlorine residual would be quickly reduced to harmless concentrations that would not impact aquatic organisms. Numerous studies of water pipeline failures have been conducted in order to evaluate system reliability, causes of pipeline failures, and the cost/benefit of pipeline replacement. Perhaps the best comprehensive study available for predictive pipeline failure rates has been prepared by the Alberta (Canada) Energy and Utilities Board. This study provides detailed information on pipeline failures, including the cause and type (i.e., leak or rupture) of the pipeline failure. While this study was prepared for all types of pipelines in Alberta (crude oil, natural gas, water, etc.), the study provides commodity-specific failure rates for water transmission pipelines. While past performance is no guarantee of future results, historical pipeline failure rate data tends to yield conservative estimates of failure rates since pipeline materials, design and construction techniques have improved since most of the pipelines in the database were constructed. Based on the EUB historical pipeline failure rates, the probability of a catastrophic pipeline failure has been estimated to be 4.8 x 10-5 per mile annually. For the approximate 13 miles of pipe within CSA-23, this would result in an annual catastrophic spill probability of 6.2 x 10-4 or approximately 0.06 spills over an assumed 100 year operating period. Therefore, it is likely that the water system will not experience a catastrophic spill over the life of the project assuming the system is properly designed, constructed, inspected and maintained. Given that the project involves a change in disinfection from one chlorine based system to another chlorine based system, and that the probability of a catastrophic system failure is low, potential impacts associated with a pipeline failure and spill are considered adverse but less than significant. No hazardous materials are known to exist in the soils that would be excavated for the project, and no evidence of past or present contamination was found at the site. No such materials were noted at the site during construction of the state water pipeline. Therefore, construction of the connection is not expected to result in any significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts.



5.6.4.2 Water Conservation The water conservation alternative relies entirely on existing, local, groundwater supplies to supply the community during droughts. The discussion under “Groundwater” below describes the existing hazards to the community’s groundwater supply. As discussed in detail below, all of the alternatives that rely on groundwater share the same risk of degradation of local groundwater supplies which, when taken together constitute a potentially significant impact. No feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the level of impact are available. 5.6.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.6]. Overall, the project’s hazards and hazardous materials impacts are considered significant, but mitigable to a level of insignificance with mitigation. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. The construction of the Santa Margarita connection to Atascadero would cross several areas that might involve the discovery of contaminated soils, including the Santa Margarita pump station on the ConocoPhillips pipelines, the oil pipelines themselves, and the gas line that traverses the community parallel to El Camino Real. However, as discussed in the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, potential impacts from these sources could be mitigated to a level of insignificance through the application of mitigation measures to detect and properly handle contaminated soils and/or water. The water delivered to CSA-23 via the Atascadero Mutual Water Company’s system would be disinfected prior to delivery, along with all of the water in the AMWC system. The potential for a catastrophic pipeline failure for the entire Nacimiento Water Project pipeline has been estimated at 0.31 failures in 100 years, or less than 1 during the life of the project. The Nacimiento EIR found that this level of risk is considered less than significant. Therefore, the potential impact to the natural environment from a spill of treated water on the Santa Margarita line is also considered less than significant.



Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take NWP water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. The potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from this alternative are similar to those for the groundwater alternatives because this option involves the use of local groundwater wells. As discussed in detail below, the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from the groundwater alternatives are considered significant and unavoidable. The risks associated with relying on wells operated by the Santa Margarita Ranch could be more or less substantial, depending on where on the Ranch those wells are located. While there are water bearing areas on the Ranch that are located away from potential pollution sources that could impact the community (Highway 58, railroads, septic tank concentrations), others are located closer to other hazards (Highway 101, ConocoPhillips facilities). Therefore, the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from this alternative are considered significant and unavoidable as well. Option C This option involves connecting the NWP directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. The potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from this alternative are similar to those for option A above. Although the new treatment plant would add a new source of potentially hazardous chemicals to the equation, the overall risk from such chemicals and from the water treatment facility are low given the regulatory environment in which these types of facilities operate. Therefore, no significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts would be generated by this option. 5.6.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries, which would deliver additional water from one or both primary sources: the alluvial aquifer and the “bedrock” aquifer. The drilling of the wells and installation of pipeline connections to the existing distribution system is not likely to involve or generate significant hazards or hazardous materials impacts. Installation of water disinfection equipment would incrementally increase the locations where chemicals are



stored and used, however, application of the required material handling and storage requirements would reduce potential impacts to a level of insignificance. There are two types of water pollution impacts which relate to additional groundwater pumping. The first is the constraint to future groundwater pumping because of existing, or potentially existing contaminated areas. The second is the constraint on future land use types and locations due to future well placement. The current pollution-based constraints to future water well development that have been identified in the project area are waste and sewage disposal areas and the ConocoPhillips Tank Farm. As these sites have the potential for groundwater contamination, the placement of new wells in proximity to them requires caution. Residential development with septic systems can result in pollution of both surface water and groundwater. Surface water pollution can result from the use of domestic herbicides and pesticides, and septic systems can result in groundwater contaminated with nitrate or other compounds. In general, the risk of pollution is directly proportional to the level of development; i.e., the more residential units built, the higher the potential that some level of pollution will be detected. For individual septic systems, the minimal caution zone is 100 feet. For multiple septic systems and sewage lagoons, such as exist within Garden Farms and Santa Margarita, a larger setback may be prudent, depending on the density of nearby septic systems and the groundwater gradient (if present). No well exclusionary criteria have been published for hydrocarbon product storage tank areas. However, it has been suggested that appropriate caution would establish both up gradient and down gradient criteria. Up gradient, a 1,000 ft. caution zone should be established; down gradient, a 3,000 ft. caution zone is recommended. These caution zones combine to include portions of the alluvium along both Yerba Buena and Trout creeks, as well as parts of the community of Garden Farms, but do not extend into the community of Santa Margarita, where any new CSA-23 wells would be located. Also, a 1,000 ft. caution zone should be established around the Santa Margarita cemetery and the small unnamed cemetery in Miller Flat. There are no published Public Safety sources concerning the impacts of cemeteries on water quality but a caution zone of some sort is prudent. These caution zones also would not extend into the community of Santa Margarita, where any new CSA-23 wells would be located. It should be stressed that the designation of a well caution area on the basis of a standard pollution setback does not mean that pollution has occurred. It is simply used to identify an area that could be of concern and, if data are lacking, should be avoided for some purposes, especially groundwater development.



The total hydraulic flow through the Santa Margarita sub basin has been estimated at 3 billion gallons per year; thus the addition of only 30 gallons of a chemical to the groundwater would result in an annual loading of 10 ppb, well above the regulatory standard for some toxic chemicals. Given the sources of potential groundwater pollution in the area (septic systems, sewage lagoons, oil transmission facilities, railroad and highway transportation corridors) the development of additional shallow groundwater for municipal purposes presents an additional level of risk. The development of the deeper “bedrock” aquifer would present less of a risk due to water pollution, however, a level of risk would remain. The risk of degradation of groundwater in the CSA-23 area due to pollution is therefore due to a number of factors:

The potential sources of pollution are numerous, including hazardous material spills on transportation corridors

Existing land uses (concentrated septic systems, unlined sewage lagoons,

oil storage and transmission facilities) have been shown to degrade groundwater in other areas

A substantial portion of the groundwater supply is contained in a shallow

aquifer Although the probability of a pollution event large enough to degrade the

community’s groundwater source is low, the effects of such an event would be substantial

Therefore, the potential hazards and hazardous materials impacts that could result from the groundwater alternatives are considered significant and unavoidable. 5.6.4.5 No Project Similar to the water conservation alternative, the no project alternative would also rely entirely on existing, local, groundwater supplies to supply the community during droughts. The discussion under “Groundwater” above describes the existing hazards to the community’s groundwater supply. As discussed in detail above, all of the alternatives that rely on groundwater share the same risk of degradation of local groundwater supplies which, when taken together constitute a potentially significant impact. No feasible mitigation measures that would reduce the level of impact are available. 5.6.5 Cumulative Impacts Hazards and hazardous materials Impacts associated with the projects listed in section 4.0 would not contribute to the cumulative risks associated with the




proposed project. Therefore, cumulative hazards and hazardous materials impacts are considered less than significant.

5.7 Biological Resources

5.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Biological resources include the native and naturalized plants and animals at and in the vicinity of the proposed project site and in the project area. The project area is defined as the region where biological resources could be affected by project activities (construction or operation). For this project, the “project area” is defined as the boundaries of the Santa Margarita Ranch, with the community of Santa Margarita located within these boundaries. For discussion purposes, the biological resources are divided into vegetation, wildlife, threatened and endangered species, and sensitive habitats. Vegetation discusses plants and plant communities within the project area. Wildlife includes all terrestrial and aquatic animals that occupy or potentially occupy the project area. Threatened and Endangered Species presents information on species occurring or potentially occurring in the project area that are afforded protection under State or Federal law or that are being considered for such protection. Sensitive Habitats includes wetlands, plant communities that are unusual or of limited distribution, and important seasonal wildlife use areas (e.g., migration routes, breeding areas, or crucial seasonal habitat). The descriptions of natural communities, wildlife, threatened and endangered species and sensitive habitats provided below are the result of site visits, published and unpublished reports, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), and contact with resources agencies. Key biological resources information relevant to the project is contained in five key documents:








and Future Development Program, June 2008



The majority of the information presented here is adapted from the Nacimiento Water Project EIR and the Environmental Constraints Analysis for Santa Margarita Ranch. 5.7.1 Environmental Setting Vegetation A total of 13 native and six nonnative vegetative communities are present in the project area. The communities are categorized based on the classification system defined in Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986). Appendix B of the Nacimiento Project EIR contains maps of the project area where locations of these vegetation communities are depicted. A full list of the vegetative species observed in the Santa Margarita area during site surveys for the Nacimiento project is also contained in Appendix B, Table B.1 Identification and location of sensitive vegetative species occurring in the project area are shown in Exhibit 5.7-1 below. Wetlands The wetland communities found along the project area are composed of native emergent perennials (e.g., bulrushes or cattails) and perennial herbs (e.g., Mexican rush [Juncus mexicanus], nodding needlegrass [Nassella cernua], long-beak fillaree [Erodium botrys], and soft chess [Bromus hordeaceus]). The disturbed wetland communities are generally dominated by invasive exotic species. Vernal Pools/Seasonal Wetlands Vernal pools are temporary/seasonal wetlands with abrupt boundaries that fall on relatively level sites underlain by an impervious hardpan soil layer. The impermeable soil layer allows the pools to retain water much longer then the surrounding uplands; nonetheless, the pools are shallow enough to dry up each season. Vernal pools often fill and empty several times during the rainy season. Only plants and animals that are adapted to this cycle of wetting and drying can survive in vernal pools over time. These specialized plants and animals are what make vernal pools unique. As winter rains fill the pools, freshwater invertebrates, crustaceans, and amphibians emerge. Vernal pool plants sprout underwater, some using special floating leaves and air-filled stems to stay afloat. Some of these plants even flower underwater. In spring, flowering plants produce the brightly-colored concentric rings of flowers that vernal pools are famous for. Native bees nest in vernal pools and pollinate pool flowers. Insects and crustaceans produce cysts and eggs, and plants produce seeds that are buried in the muddy pool bottom. At the end of the summer season vernal pools



completely dry out and most of the plant and animal species either disappear into the soils or set seed and die. In this phase, vernal pools are really "banks" full of resting seeds, cysts, and eggs that can survive through summer, and even extended droughts, until the onset of the rains begin the life cycle anew. Riparian Forest Riparian forests occur along channels or other hydrologic features. Typical riparian under stories in the project are consist of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), California rose (Rosa californica), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Riparian scrub communities also occur within the project area. Uplands Upland plant communities occurring within the project area include central coast scrub, northern mixed chaparral, valley needle grassland, serpentine bunchgrass, valley oak woodland, blue oak woodland, and coast live oak woodland, as well as nonnative grassland, ruderal or weedy vegetation, general agriculture, and developed lands. A brief description of these upland communities is provided below. Central coast scrub - This community occurs on exposed often south-facing slopes near the coast and is distributed between Monterey County and Point Conception. Characteristic plant species include black sage (Salvia mellifera), sticky monkeyflower (Mimulus aurantiacus), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), poison oak, coyote bush, mock heather (Ericameria ericoides), and California coffeeberry (Rhamnus californicus). Northern mixed chaparral- This community tends to occur on north-facing slopes. Typical species include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), several species of manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), and wild lilac (Ceanothus spp.). The understory component may include species such as mariposa lily (Calochortus spp.) and soap plant (Chlorogalum spp.), among others. Native grasslands - The grasslands in the study area include valley needlegrass grassland and serpentine bunchgrass. Valley needlegrass grassland is dominated by the perennial species purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). Characteristic associates include several species of brodiaea (Brodiaea spp.), soap plant, mariposa lily, and blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium spp.). Serpentine bunchgrass is a native grassland community that is restricted to serpentine outcrops. Common species include needlegrass (Nasella lepida and N. cemua), wavy soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), California poppy (Eschscholzia



califomica), wild onion (Allium lacunosum var. lacunosum), spineflowers (Chorizanthe spp.), live forevers (Dudleya spp.), and mariposa lilies. Valley oak woodland - This community is an open-canopied woodland dominated by valley oak (Quercus lobata) with a grassy under story. The habitat type occurs below 2,000 feet elevation in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys along the foothills of the Sierra Nevada, and the valleys of the Coast Ranges from Lake to Los Angeles counties. The resulting mixed forest may include valley oak and blue oak (Quercus douglasii) with an under story of creeping wild rye (Elymus triticoides) and poison oak. Blue oak woodland - This community is typically found in the valleys and foothills of the southern and interior North Coast Ranges, in the South Coast ranges, and the western foothills of the Sierra Nevada (Holland 1986). Characteristic species of this community include blue oak, valley oak, California buckeye (Aesculus califomicus), grey pine (Pinus sabiniana), scrub oak, California coffeeberry, and buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus). Coast Live Oak Woodland - This community consists of an open or closed canopy of large evergreen trees, mostly coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and occurs on slopes and in shaded ravines. The under story is often dominated by nonnative, weedy species, particularly ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Nonnative grassland - These grasslands are dominated by nonnative grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs (non-grasses). Typical species include wild oat (Avenafatua), soft chess, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), long-beak filaree, red-stem filaree (Eriogonum cicutarium), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), and Italian rye grass (Lolium multiflorum). Ruderal or weedy vegetation - This community consists of any lands on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by grading, plowing, or land-clearing activities and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of one of the plant communities within the study region. Typical plant species include Russian-thistle (Salsola tragus), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), and wild oats (Avena spp.), among others. Nonnative and ornamental trees, such as eucalyptus, pepper- trees (Schinus spp.), and olive (Olea europea) can also occur in this community. Agricultural - This component includes actively cultivated lands or lands that support nursery operations. These may include vineyards and hay production. Developed areas - These areas support no native vegetation and may be additionally characterized by the presence of man-made structures such as roads or buildings. The level of soil disturbance is such that only the most ruderal plant species would be expected.



Wildlife Species and Associated Habitats A full list of the wildlife species observed during recent site surveys for the Nacimiento Water project through Santa Margarita is contained in Appendix B, Table B.2 of the Nacimiento EIR. These species have established themselves successfully due to the presence of suitable wildlife habitat throughout the project area. Wetland, terrestrial, and aquatic habitat types occur within the proposed project area. Prey availability, water, topography, vegetative cover and protection, and soil composition are important in determining the value of a habitat to wildlife. Descriptions of wildlife habitat types found within the project area are listed below. Identification and location of sensitive wildlife species occurring in the project area are shown in Exhibit 5.7-1 below. Wetlands Wetlands generally have high wildlife habitat value because of the presence of a complex vegetative over story and under story, and water. Riparian habitat provides a protective cover and nesting locations for many bird species, such as Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus). Wetland habitat types can also support various aquatic, crustacean, and amphibian species, such as the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Seasonal wetlands (vernal pools) can support the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and the western spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus hammondii). Terrestrial Terrestrial communities tend to have high wildlife habitat value because the variety of foraging and nesting options leads to a highly diverse wildlife component. Native and nonnative grasslands, native upland areas, and oak woodlands provide high to moderate wildlife habitat quality depending on the amount of cover, prey, and accessibility. These terrestrial habitats can support many bird species, such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and the red- tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), as well as mammal species, such as the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and the California ground squirrel (Spermophilis beechyii). Aquatic Habitats Areas of open water provide breeding habitat for amphibians and aquatic birds, as well as a source of drinking water for birds and mammals. Water bodies also provide fish habitat, the quality of which is often dependent on water quality,



quantity, and seasonality. The aquatic habitats present in the project area include:

The Salinas River, which has flow throughout the majority of the year with the flow regulated by Santa Margarita Lake, located upstream

Perennial streams and intermittent creeks include Trout Creek, Yerba

Buena Creek, and Santa Margarita Creek Several man-made impoundments created for irrigation and cattle on the

Santa Margarita Ranch Sensitive Species and Habitats Sensitive species are listed as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFG based on their overall rarity, endangerment, unique habitat requirements, and/or restricted distribution. The potential presence of sensitive species in the project area was identified using a combination of CNDDB, the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) plant listing, and the results of site surveys. The CNDDB lists locales of sensitive biological resources in California identified during routine site investigations and from historic records. The compiled data contained in the CNDDB are the result of the voluntary submission of records by field investigators. In addition, local regulations apply when it comes to oak woodland sensitivity. In San Luis Obispo County, oaks maintain a protected status; therefore, efforts must be made to avoid the trees, according to County guidance documents and Assembly Bill No. 2421 to add Article 3.5 to Chapter 4 of Division 2 of the CDFG Code. The CNPS listing is used because it lists those plants believed or known to be rare and those that are considered candidate species for the CDFG. A search of the pertinent 7.5-minute USGS map quadrangles revealed the presence of sensitive biological resources in the project vicinity. The USFWS has recently changed how they list species and candidate species under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register, February 28, 1996). The USFWS has eliminated Category 2 and 3 candidate species and will no longer maintain a list of these species. Some of the species have been designated Category 1 candidate species and retain USFWS protection, while other species no longer receive USFWS protection. Species may be also protected by CDFG or local ordinances. AB 242 creates the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act and establishes the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund to provide grants for conservation easements, incentive programs, public education and outreach related to conservation of oak woodlands. Exhibit 5.7-1 lists sensitive species, including protected species, known or suspected to occur in the project area. The Exhibit summarizes the status and habitat preferences of each of these species.



Exhibit 5.7-1 Sensitive Vegetative and Wildlife Species in the Project Area

Sensitive Species Status* Habitat

Plants

San Luis Mariposa Lily Calochortus obispoensis

FED: None CA: None CNPS: List 1B, 2-2-3

Found on dry stony hills or canyons in chaparral, coastal scrub, or grassland habitats, and can occur on ultramafic material

Brewer’s Spineflower Chorizanthe breweri

FED: None CA: None CNPS: List 1B, 3-1-3

Inhabitant of chaparral, cistomontane woodland and coastal sage scrub on ultramafic substrates of San Luis Obispo County. One occurrence is just outside the ranch boundary west of Cuesta Pass.

Chorro Creek Bog Thistle Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense

FED: E CA: E CNPS: List 1B, 3-2-3

Restricted to open seep areas on serpentine soil outcrops, known from only 9 locations

Cuesta Pass Checkerbloom Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. anomala

FED: SC CA: Rare CNPS: List 1B, 3-2-3

Found in closed-cone conifer forests, sometimes on serpentine and is known from three reported CNDDB occurrences on Cuesta Ridge in the Los Padres National Forest

Crustaceans

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta lynchi

FED: T CA: None

Occur in seasonally inundated wetlands; primarily in vernal pools; have been known to occur in roadside ditches and tire marks.

Fish

Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

FED: T CA: CSC

Anadromous rainbow trout that returns to spawn in freshwater streams during the spring; it will often move up coastal waterways in the fall and wait to spawn in the spring. Juveniles typically remain in freshwater for 2-3 years before returning to the ocean; have been reported in Salinas River and Santa Margarita Creek

Amphibians

California Tiger Salamander Ambystoma californiense

FED: E (SB Co.) CA: CSC

Open woodlands, grasslands, and ponds.

California Red-legged Frog Rana draytoni

FED: T CA: CSC

Frequents marshes, slow moving water sections of streams, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and other usually permanent water sources, occurs primarily in wooded areas in lowlands and foothills, although it can also be found in grassland. Reported from Yerba Buena Creek

Reptiles

California Horned Lizard Phrynosoma coronatum frontale

FED: None CA: CSC

Open areas for sunning, bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for burial and abundant supply of ants and other insects.




Southwestern Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida

FED: SC CA: CSC

An aquatic reptile restricted to permanent water with mud or rocky bottoms. Known to occur in Salinas River and Santa Margarita Creek

Birds

California Condor Gymnogyps californianus

FED: E CA: E

Is the largest flying bird in North America; has been observed in the community of Santa Margarita.

Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii

FED: None CA: CSC

Preys largely on songbirds and small mammals. Has high potential to occur in areas with oaks or riparian woodland during winter.

Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis

FED: SC CA: CSC

Inhabits the dry western plains and the intermountain regions; winter visitor in SLO County.

Merlin Falco columbarius

FED: None CA: CSC

Breeds in open coniferous woodland, prairie and winters in open woodland, grasslands, cultivated, fields, marshes, estuaries and sea coasts; frequents coastlines, open grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, lakes, and wetlands. Dense tree stands may be used for cover and frequently are close to bodies of water.

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus

FED: None CA: CSC

Breeds in short-grass communities, preferring native prairies but also occupying grazed mixed-grass communities and scrub prairie. After the breeding season is over, species migrates to coastal habitats, mostly from California into Mexico. Most often encountered on tidal flats and other coastal habitats, wintering curlews also occur on inland grassland and agricultural habitats.

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus velox

FED: None CA: CSC

Is fairly common over much of its range and prefers mixed woodlands; preys mainly on smaller birds and migrates singly or in loose groups. Has high potential to occur in areas with oaks or riparian woodland during winter.

Tri-colored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor

FED: None CA: CSC

Lives in open valleys and foothills, streamside timber, tules and cattails in marshes, and edges of reservoirs.

Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia hypugea

FED: SC CA: CSC

Is a ground dweller and occupies open country, golf courses, and airports. Has high potential to occur in all nonnative grasslands and habitats that fringe agriculture.

Long-eared Owl Asio otus

FED: None CA: CSC

Uses wooded areas for daytime roosting with adjacent open areas to forage; uses forest edges or patches of conifers adjacent to grasslands, agricultural lands, or riparian habitat. In the west and south-west they are also found in deciduous woods near lakes and streams where growth of climbing vines provide dense roosting cover during winter.

Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni

FED: SC CA: T

Usually migrates in large flocks and winters chiefly in South America; prefers grassland, open plains, and prairie habitat.




Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

FED: PT CA: CSC

Inhabit plains and grassy or bare dirt fields. Has high potential to occur in agricultural fields and grasslands during winter.

Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus

FED: None CA: CSC

Forages and nests in grasslands and marshes.

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri

FED: None CA: CSC

A summer visitor to-California and nests only in mature riparian woodland.

Yellow-breasted Chat Icteria virens

FED: None CA: CSC

Inhabits willow cottonwood riparian areas. Nests in dense riparian habitats dominated by willows, tall weeds, blackberry vines, and grapevines, uncommon migrant in California.

Common Loon Gavia immer

FED: None CA:CSC

Shallow, marshy areas, habitat is largely chosen based on how appropriate the environment is for building a nest as well as the abundance of food.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Empidonax alpestris actia

FED: E CA: None

Occurs in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other wetlands in dense growths of willow, often with a scattered over story of Fremont cottonwood; suitable habitat occurs along the Salinas River.

California Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris actia

FED: None CA: CSC

Prefers dirt fields, gravel ridges, and shores; have high potential to occur in disturbed areas and grasslands.

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovivianus

FED: SC CA: CSC

Prefers open fields with scattered trees, open woodland habitat, and scrub habitat.

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

FED: None CA: CSC

Frequent sightings in project area.

Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus

FED: None CA: CSC

Nest in cliffs overlooking large areas, forages in open grasslands.

Least Bell’s Vireo Viero bellii pusillus

FED: E CA: E

Inhabit riparian forests of southern California. Essential elements of the habitat are dense, low-growing generally impenetrable thickets of willow, mulefat, California blackberry, mugwort and other similar species.

White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus

FED: None CA: SA

Open country, grasslands and marshes; nests in trees.

Mammals

Greater Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis californicus

FED: SC CA: CSC

Rock crevices, forage over chaparral, scrub, oaks.

Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus pacificus

FED: None CA: CSC

Coastal and lower montane, grasslands.

Townsend’s Western Big-eared Bat, Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii

FED: SC CA: CSC

Coastal and lower montane, oak and conifer woodlands, arid grasslands and deserts, and high elevation forests and meadows.

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans

FED: SC CA: CSC

Species forage near tees and cliffs, over water, and in wooded openings, at 10 to 15 feet from the ground. Roosting sites can be found in rock crevices, buildings, under bark, in snags, and caves.




Northern Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis evotis

FED: SC CA: None

Found in woodlands

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis saturatus

FED: SC CA: SC

Roosts colonially in a variety of natural and human-made sites including caves, mines, buildings, bridges, and trees; forages for insects over water bodies.

Western Small-footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum melanorhinus

FED: SC CA: None

Found in open stands in forests and woodlands, as wells as shrub lands; uses caves, crevices, and abandoned buildings.

FEDERAL E Endangered: Afforded protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act as an

endangered species. T Threatened: Afforded protection under the Federal Endangered Species Act as a

threatened species SC Species of Concern: Species for which insufficient information exists to warrant listing STATE E Endangered: Afforded protection under the state Endangered Species Act as an

endangered species. T Threatened: Afforded protection under the state Endangered Species Act as a threatened

species. CSC California Species of Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species

that appears to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats.

SA Special Animal: of concern to the Natural Diversity Data Base regardless of protection status CNPS (California Native Plant Society) List lA - Plants believed extinct. List IB - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere. List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more numerous elsewhere. List 3 - A review list of plants for which the CNPS requires more information. List 4 - Plants of limited distribution (watch list). 5.7.2 Regulatory Setting Natural resources are protected by State and Federal legislation intended to conserve and promote their recovery. Generally, these laws can be grouped into the following three categories:

Laws intended to protect individual species and their habitat, such as state and Federal endangered species acts

Laws intended to protect taxa (groups), such as the Federal Migratory Bird

Treaty Act

Laws that protect habitats or natural communities critical to the maintenance of other vital resources, such as portions of the Federal



Clean Water Act and California Fish and Game Code that protect wetlands and streambeds, respectively

Endangered Species Acts The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (as amended) provides for the conservation of ecosystems upon which threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants depend, both through Federal action and by encouraging the establishment of State programs. FESA authorizes USFWS with the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened. FESA prohibits unauthorized take, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species. Section 7 of FESA requires Federal agencies to ensure that any action authorized, funded or carried out by them, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. Furthermore, it encourages agencies to consult with the US Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries prior to undertaking any such action. The FESA requires obtaining an Incidental Take Permit when non-federal activities may result in an incidental "take" of federally-listed species. "Take" is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species. Harm may include significant habitat modification where it actually kills or injures a listed species through impairment of essential behavior (e.g., nesting or reproduction). The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 et seq.) is administered by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). CESA requires CDFG to maintain a list of threatened and endangered species. CDFG also maintains a list of candidates for listing under CESA and of species of special concern (or watch list species). CESA prohibits the "taking" of listed species except as otherwise provided in State law. Section 86 of CFG Code defines "take" as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." Under certain circumstances, CESA applies these take prohibitions to species petitioned for listing (State candidates). Pursuant to the requirements of CESA, State lead agencies (as defined under CEQA Pub. Res. Code Section 21067) are required to consult with CDFG to ensure that any action or project is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat. Additionally, CDFG encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15380[b]) also afford species not listed under FESA or CESA special consideration if a species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. Intended primarily to deal with situations in which, for example, an action affects a species not yet afforded protection under State or Federal



law, this section of the CEQA Guidelines affords species protection until legal designation is warranted. CNPS maintains a list of plants believed or known to be rare. This list includes species that are not afforded protection under Federal or state endangered species legislation. The major categories of plants under the CNPS scheme are:

List 1 A - Plants believed extinct

List 1 B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere

List 2 - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more

numerous elsewhere

List 3 - A review list of plants for which the CNPS requires more information

List 4 - A watch list of plants of limited distribution

CNPS List 1 or 2 are generally considered to meet CEQA Section 15380 criteria. Protected Wildlife The vegetation in the area provides nesting habitat for bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S. Code 703-712), enacted in 1918, prohibits the pursuit, hunting, take, capture, possession, or killing of all native birds, and the destruction of their eggs or nests, except where exempted by local game laws. Although depredation permits are issued under this Act for the purpose of controlling bird populations under certain conditions, permits are not normally issued for projects that harm protected species through construction or similar activities. Compliance with this act is normally achieved through project planning and impact avoidance. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15206, a project may be deemed to be of statewide, regional, or area-wide significance if it substantially affects sensitive wildlife habitat. The definition of sensitive wildlife habitats includes, but is not limited to, riparian lands, wetlands, bays, estuaries, marshes, and habitats for rare and endangered species as defined by California Fish and Game Code Section 903. Protected Habitats Streams in the project area as “Waters of the United States” under the Federal Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States are subdivided into seven categories, two of which are wetlands and adjacent wetlands (33 CPR Sections 328.3[a] and [a] [7]).



Wetlands are defined under 33 CFR Part 328.3 (b) as "[T]hose areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency or duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The Army Corps of Engineers is charged, in cooperation with the EPA, with the responsibility for issuing permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps has developed a multiple parameter test for determining the presence and extent of wetlands in a given area. In essence, the test relies on the characterization of soils and vegetation, and the readily identifiable presence of water. When it is determined that an area meets these criteria, it is subject to the restrictions and prohibitions of the Clean Water Act as it applies to wetlands. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act imposes restrictions on and requires permits for any action that involves the placement of fill material from, or results in flooding of, wetlands or other Waters of the United States. In accordance with EPA regulations issued under Section 404(b)(1), the permitting of fill will not be approved unless the following conditions are met: no practicable, less environmentally damaging alternative to the action exists; the activity does not cause or contribute to violations of state water quality standards (as described under Section 401 of the CW A); the activity does not jeopardize federally listed threatened or endangered species or sensitive cultural resources (as required by 33 CFR Part 320.3e and g); the activity does not contribute to significant degradation of waters of the United States; and all practicable and appropriate steps have been taken to minimize potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem (40 CFR Part 230.10). Streams may also be afforded protection as streambed impacts are subject to the limitations of California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1607. Under this regulation, CDFG is authorized to recommend mitigation for projects that obstruct the flow or that otherwise result in the alteration of the bed, channel, or bank of a stream or river. The law extends CDFG's jurisdiction to permanent, ephemeral (non-permanent), and intermittent streams. Projects likely to affect these resources are required to enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the CDFG. 5.7.3 Significance Criteria Sensitivity ratings assigned to certain biological resources by Federal and State resource agencies (e.g., ACOE, USFWS, CDFG), the regional sensitivity of the resource, local significance criteria, and the degree to which the resource may be affected are used in evaluating the significance of an impact. More specifically, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides the criteria for determining the significance of an impact to natural resources. In general, an impact is deemed significant if:



It conflicts with local, State and Federal environmental plans and policies, especially those aimed at protecting sensitive biological resources

It has a substantial effect on species listed as endangered or threatened

and their habitat, or species that are recognized as rare by State, Federal, or scientific agencies and institutions (as defined in CEQA Guidelines) and their habitat

It causes a substantial interference with the movement of any migratory

fish or wildlife species

It results in substantial loss of habitat for fish, wildlife, or plant species

It involves the use, production, or disposal of materials which pose a hazard to animal or plant populations in the area affected

Substantial impacts are those of sufficient magnitude or duration that they affect abundance and distribution of a resource or significantly alter its viability. For the purposes of analysis, impacts to biological resources are evaluated by assessing the proposed action's effect on a resource while considering that resource's status. Generally, impacts on sensitive resources afforded specific legislative protection (i.e., wetlands, federally and State listed species, and coastal habitat) are considered significant. Determination of significance for impacts on resources afforded minimal or no protection (e.g., non-sensitive natural habitats, State species of concern, and locally sensitive species) is more dependent on the specific factors listed in the CEQA Guidelines. 5.7.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.7.4.1 Proposed Project Biological impacts resulting from the proposed project would stem from construction activities only. The operational phase of the project would not involve additional equipment, personnel, or increases in maintenance activities or maintenance related traffic generation. Valves, flow metering equipment or other related system management components would be electrically operated and would therefore not generate additional noise that could impact wildlife. The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system. The area of temporary disturbance is estimated at is less than 1 acre (8,224 square feet). Habitats. The project site is located near an area that has identified vernal pool habitat as determined by aerial survey mapping by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife



Service. Based on previous biological surveys conducted on the Santa Margarita Ranch (Althouse and Meade, 2003, 2005 and Rincon Consultants, 2006), suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), a Federally Threatened species, is present on the Santa Margarita Ranch within seasonal pools. The proposed area for disturbance is not located within, but is in close proximity to seasonal pool habitat. Based on previous biological studies, implementation of the proposed project would not directly affect seasonal ponds or potential vernal pool habitat, as long as project boundaries are strictly defined in the field. Special-Status Plants and Animals. Based on the latest California Diversity database and biological references including previous biological surveys conducted on the Santa Margarita Ranch (Althouse and Meade, 2003, 2005 and Rincon Consultants, 2006), many special status plant and animal species are found on the Santa Margarita Ranch within one mile of the project. However, based on the limited area of disturbance, and highly disturbed nature of the work area, none of these species are anticipated to be in the project area. Field surveys by a County biologist conducted during the appropriate flowering season indicated no special status species within the proposed project area. Wetland and Riparian Habitat. A large seasonal pool and associated drainage channel are located to the south and west of the project area. The seasonal pool and wetlands have been identified as jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The project will not directly impact these wetland areas. In addition, review of the information prepared for the State Water project indicates that no sensitive vegetation was found in the immediate project area during the development of that project. No sensitive wildlife species are known to inhabit the immediate project site, although birds and other animals may occasionally forage in the area. The temporary impacts posed by the construction process are not expected to result in significant impacts to any sensitive species. The work area is within 300 feet of seasonal wetlands located on the adjacent Santa Margarita Ranch, and within 50 feet of a seasonal drainage channel. To ensure that impacts to these habitats do not occur, the following mitigation measure is proposed: BIO-1: The project limits will be clearly delineated on all construction plans. Prior to any construction work beginning, including any vegetation clearing, flagging and/or fencing, as required by the biological monitor, shall be placed to clearly delineate the project limits. No construction work (including storage of materials) shall occur outside of the project limits. Any required fencing shall remain in place during the entire construction period and checked as needed by the environmental monitor and/or resident engineer.



With the application of the mitigation measure listed above, identified potentially significant biological impacts associated with the proposed project would be mitigated to insignificance. 5.7.4.2 Water Conservation This alternative consists of the implementation of a comprehensive water conservation program consisting of two primary parts. The first part, or “base” program, would be implemented at the earliest opportunity and would be effective at all times, regardless of the status of the groundwater (or other) supply. The second or “drought” part would go into effect when triggered by shortages or potential shortages in the water supply that occur either as a result of prolonged drought or other events that reduce the available water. As water usage per capita is lowered via implementation of a water conservation plan during periods of drought, pumping of local groundwater would be reduced. At the same time, return flows from septic systems would also be reduced, lessening the amount of local groundwater recharge. It is assumed that during drought periods, outdoor irrigation would be eliminated, so there would be no return flows from irrigation. As discussed in detail in section 5.1, Hydrology and Water Quality, groundwater outflow is estimated at 233 AFY for the Santa Margarita watershed and 203 AFY for the Yerba Buena watershed, for a total of 436 AFY. Groundwater pumping by CSA 23 amounts to 197 AFY, with a net consumption of 99 AFY and return flows of 99 AFY. Assuming that all other inflows and outflows are negligible, the total amount of subsurface flow entering the town of Santa Margarita from the south is about 535 AFY (436 AFY + 99 AFY). Pumping by CSA 23 intercepts about 37 percent of this flow (197 AFY/535 AFY) and consumes about 19 percent. During drought periods, groundwater outflow will continue even if CSA 23 reduces pumping, although the rate may slow as less water enters the system above the town of Santa Margarita. Put another way, the ability to save water in the local aquifer to be used during later drought periods is diminished, potentially to the point of ineffectiveness, because of the natural gradient underlying the local aquifers. That is, the Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena aquifers will continue to drain in a northerly direction regardless of the actions of CSA 23 and other local pumpers to reduce pumping. As groundwater levels drop due to municipal pumping and drought, outflows to surface streams would also drop, and ultimately cease, as groundwater levels drop below the elevation of adjacent stream courses. Although it can be postulated that stream flows would cease during extended droughts with or without municipal groundwater pumping, it is also equally evident that stream flows would cease earlier in a season because of groundwater pumping. Consequently, total reliance on a water conservation program would likely result in interference with essential life stages of sensitive species, particularly



steelhead. Any project which tends to exacerbate the loss of surface flows could result in significant and unavoidable biological impacts due to the presence of listed sensitive species in Santa Margarita Creek. However, if implemented in concert with the proposed project, the water conservation alternative has the potential to result in beneficial impacts to hydrology and water quality by reducing groundwater pumping during drought periods. 5.7.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential biological impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.7]. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. This 3-mile segment would be located within the right-of-way of El Camino Real, in areas generally devoid of sensitive biological resources. However, the pipeline would cross Santa Margarita Creek. As with the other creek crossings proposed by the Nacimiento project, substantial mitigation measures would be applied. As noted in the Nacimiento EIR, application of these measures would reduce the project’s biological impacts to less than significant. Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using NWP supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take NWP water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. In order to participate in this option, the Ranch would utilize wells tapping the creek alluvium under one or more creeks, including Santa Margarita Creek, Trout, or Yerba Buena. During period of prolonged drought, increasing the volume of water pumped from the shallow alluvial aquifers on the Ranch could result in impacts to sensitive biological resources by reducing stream flows and reducing the persistence time of seasonal wetlands. This in turn would negatively affect habitat conditions for species that depend on surface water resources. The degree to which additional groundwater pumping could impact biological resources is difficult to predict, as the relationship between local surface and groundwater resources is not precisely defined.



However, as is the case in smaller watersheds in the County, if a close connection between stream flows and adjacent shallow water basins exists in the alluvium, then any project which tends to exacerbate the loss of surface flows could result in significant and unavoidable biological impacts due to the presence of listed sensitive species in area creeks. Option C This option would connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. Application of the same mitigation measure for the proposed project would reduce impacts to biological resource impacts to less than significant levels. 5.7.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries. It is unlikely that the drilling of additional wells and connecting them to the distribution system would result in significant impacts to biological resources. However, if such work was conducted in close proximity to sensitive water bodies, such as Santa Margarita Creek, Yerba Buena Creek, or the seasonal wetlands areas located at the boundaries of the community, mitigation measures similar to those specified for the proposed project would reduce any potentially significant biological impacts from construction to a less than significant level. Option A This option would place a new deep well near well #3. Additional groundwater pumping from the deeper “bedrock” aquifer would not be expected to result in biological impacts as there is no direct or measurable connection between the deeper aquifer and biological resources dependent on surface water resources. Option B This option involves placing a new deep well in the same deep bedrock formation as the Santa Margarita Elementary School Well. As with option A, additional groundwater pumping from the deeper “bedrock” aquifer would not be expected to result in biological impacts as there is no direct or measurable connection between the deeper aquifer and biological resources dependent on surface water resources.




Option C This option involves the development of a new well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community. Increasing the volume of water pumped from the shallow alluvial aquifer near Santa Margarita Creek could result in impacts to sensitive biological resources by reducing stream flows and reducing the persistence time of seasonal wetlands. This in turn would negatively affect habitat conditions for species that depend on surface water resources. The degree to which additional groundwater pumping could impact biological resources is difficult to predict, as the relationship between local surface and groundwater resources is not precisely defined. However, as is the case in several smaller watersheds in the County, if a close connection between stream flows and adjacent shallow water basins exists in the Santa Margarita Creek alluvium, then any project which tends to exacerbate the loss of surface flows could result in significant and unavoidable biological impacts due to the presence of listed sensitive species in Santa Margarita Creek. 5.7.4.5 No Project The no project alternative has the potential to result in adverse biological impacts because the community would continue to rely on groundwater pumping even during drought periods. Similar, but more severe, to the effects of the water conservation alternative (if implemented independently of the proposed project), the no project alternative could result in the reduction of surface flows in area streams due to the lowering of adjacent groundwater levels. As is the case in many smaller watersheds in the County, if a close connection between stream flows and adjacent shallow water basins exists in the alluvium, then any project which tends to exacerbate the loss of surface flows could result in significant and unavoidable biological impacts due to the presence of listed sensitive species in area creeks 5.7.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to biological resources were also evaluated. The proposed project’s potential biological impacts are the result of construction activities, and not on-going operational activities. Because of the short duration and limited scope of the project’s construction, cumulative biological impacts would not be considered significant.

5.8 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

5.8 CULTURAL and PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES Prehistoric, Historic, Paleontology, Geomorphology and Geological Resources information related to the proposed project is contained in five key documents:








and Future Development Program, June 2008 The majority of the information in this section is excerpted from the Final EIR for the Nacimiento Water Project, which in turn derived its key information from two technical reports on cultural and paleontological resources of the project site prepared by Gibson's Archaeological Consulting:

Inventory of Prehistoric, Historic, Paleontology, Geomorphology and Geological Resources for the Nacimiento Water Supply Pipeline Project, San Luis Obispo County, CA, November 1996 and January 30, 2003

These reports are herein incorporated by reference and because of the confidential nature of the information, may be reviewed by qualified persons on a "need-to-know" basis at the Environmental Division of the San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building Department, County Government Center, San Luis Obispo, California. 5.8.1 Environmental Setting Paleontology Resources Based on previous finds in the area, potentially significant paleontology resources of high scientific value have a high probability of occurrence in the project area. Of strong interest to paleontologists are fossils of land mammals and birds, fossil shells, and fossil marine mammals. Microfossils are not normally considered a significant resource as they are generally common in the rocks in



which they occur, while fossils represent significant and unusual finds. Due to widespread fossil shell deposits, the Santa Margarita Formation has a moderate to high potential for paleontological resources. While the proposed project is located on the Santa Margarita Formation, the Nacimiento Project EIR identified only one location with important paleontology resources in that project area (which includes the proposed project site). That one site is located along the Nacimiento River, well north of the proposed project. Geology Resources Specific rock resources of interest to prehistoric people include rocks for making chipped stone tools, knives and projectile points (notably cherts and basalts from the Monterey Formation and Franciscan Complex). Quartzites and other dense cobbles from old sedimentary deposits were utilized as hammerstones, abrading hammers, and choppers, while hard sandstones, siltstones, and granites were used for ground stone like manos, metates, pestles and mortars. Early peoples used cinnabar and ochre as pigments and paints, while other rocks were used for spiritual purposes, such as cinnabar, fossils, quartz crystals, and large distinctive outcrops. Found along the proposed pipeline route in the Nacimiento Narrows and near Santa Margarita, the Santa Margarita Formation extends through the Coast and Transverse Ranges between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The fossil shells of this formation include Ostrea titan (Giant Oyster), pectin (various scallops) and echinoderma (sand dollars; urchins) in abundant estuarine sediments. Fossil shells, or megafossils, were used by nineteenth century geologists to date rocks. Miocene fossils from the Pacific Coast were first described by Conrad in 1838-1857, and the "Santa Margarita" was a Late Miocene fauna widely known to early geologists. Outcrops of sandstone near Santa Margarita include the shell layers at Chalk Hill that were used in the making of strong adobe mortar found at Mission San Luis Obispo and Asistencia. The Santa Margarita Formation was formed in either a series of small deposition basins, or in a single basin broken and dispersed along the San Andreas fault zone by Pleistocene age tectonic activity. Reconstructions indicate the presence of a single Late Miocene seaway between the Pacific Ocean and a shallow sea located in the present-day San Joaquin Valley. Sea-levels had fallen during the Late Miocene, and the sandstones of the Santa Margarita Formation represent sandy near-shore deposits and shallow marine basins. The white sandy hills are still important today, providing habitats and supporting important aquifers supplying surface seeps and springs. Geomorphology Geomorphology is the study of landforms and soils. Geomorphology is important in characterizing areas where post-depositional processes affect cultural sites.



Such processes can create low site visibility, bury sites from surface observation, erode sites, and, by physically displacing artifacts, distort the archaeological record. As many pipeline projects have encountered sites not detected during initial field surveys due to their burial within the subsurface, of great importance to central coast archaeology is the delineation of areas where significant cultural deposits may be buried in the subsurface in order to prevent: 1) serious construction delays, and 2) destruction of irreplaceable archaeological deposits. Additionally, the identification and discussion of landforms and soils provides archaeologists with a sense of the natural setting associated with these cultural resources. Santa Margarita is an area containing primarily sandy soils. The sand comes both from erosion of sandstone in the Santa Margarita Formation underlying the hills and terraces at this locality, and also from sand blowing from exposed sandy soils, sandstone, and sandy deposits left during winter floods and exposed to spring or summer winds. A paleo-sand dune is located south of Highway 58 as one leaves Santa Margarita proceeding eastward. Sandy soils have significant implications for archaeology. Relevant soil processes include polygenetic surfaces (unstable surface can erode or accumulate at varying times and places), active soil fauna that churns soil, and continuing sand input. These processes quickly obscure prehistoric sites, hiding from view artifacts like bone, shell and chipped stone so that even sites located at the surface have very low visibility. Prehistoric Cultural Resources San Luis Obispo County was historically occupied by the Obispeno Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumashian speaking peoples of California. The Salinan nation bordered the Chumash territory to the north, in the region now known as Monterey County. Borders between Native American groups were very complex however, and included religious, political, social, and economic aspects which changed over time. Research is continuing on the definition and refinement of the border between the two peoples. Pre-mission marriage and social networks in the area between Paso Robles and Santa Margarita indicate that Chumash and Salinan people often lived in the same villages. Archaeological evidence has revealed that the Chumash settled in northern Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties more than 9,000 years ago. The Chumash followed an annual cycle of hunting, fishing, fowling, and harvesting, relying on the abundance of ocean resources as a major food source. The Chumash people were able to adapt to changing environmental and social conditions and grew into a large, complex society which persists today. The territory and population of the Chumash was much larger than the neighboring Salinan.



Archaeological evidence has revealed that more that 5,000 years ago the ancestors of the Salinan settled in what is now Monterey County. Like the Chumash, the Salinan followed an annual cycle of hunting, fishing, fowling, and harvesting, eventually developing into a large and complex society. After contact with the Spanish occurred in 1769, Salinan society underwent major changes and a rapid decline. Little systematic archaeological research has been conducted in Salinan territory and much of what there is remains unpublished. Much of the technological development of the Salinan is similar to the Chumash. The proposed project is within the border territory historically shared by Southern Salinan to the north and Chumash to the south. Pre-mission marriage patterns, linguistic and personal name analysis and post mission settlement patterns have also identified some Yokuts and possibly Costanoan people living in the northern portions of San Luis Obispo County. Historic Cultural Resources California's Historical Period begins in 1769 with Spanish exploration and founding of the Franciscan Missions. Early settlements grew up at Mission San Miguel and Mission San Luis Obispo. After 1821, California became part of the independent Republic of Mexico. Under Mexican jurisdiction, most missions were secularized after 1833, and the lands divided into Mexican land grant ranchos. As a place name, Santa Margarita was named by Pedro Font in 1776 during Anza's expedition to settle San Francisco. Lands around the area were used by the Mission since at least 1790. The Asistencia, built in the early 1800s, provided living quarters for servants, major-domos, and wayfarers, grain storage, chapel, and guest rooms for visiting priests during harvest. In 1841, the Rancho Santa Margarita was granted to Joaquin Estrada; title to the 17,735 acres was confirmed in 1854. Estrada ran 200,000 head of cattle on the ranch, but was devastated by drought in 1859. He sold the ranch in 1860 to Michael Murphy, Jr., who received the US Patent for the ranch in 1861. The ranch was placed in the hands of General Patrick Murphy along with the Asuncion Ranch, and the pastures were returned to grain production. After harvest, reduced herds were turned out. Billy Farrel opened a small store near the ranch house that also served as the stage stop. Five adobes remain at the ranch headquarters. Murphy sold the ranch in 1904 to William Reis, who built the galvanized iron barn over the Asistencia. Reis ran up to 75,000 head of sheep on the ranch. In 1967 the Reis family willed the ranch to Stanford University who sold it in 1975 to the Robertson family of Texas. In 1999 the Robertson family sold the ranch to Santa Margarita Ranch LLC, the current owner. The town of Santa Margarita was purchased from the ranch and laid out by the Pacific Improvement Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad, in 1889. The railroad operated a construction office there for the first five years employing up to 1,000 people, many of them Chinese. The town grew and contained saloons, grocery stores, blacksmith shops, barbershops, restaurants,



butcher shops, watch repair, a drug store, dairy, cobbler, a pool hall, and a casket maker. The Southern Pacific Milling Company operated in town and Swiss immigrant wood cutters also settled here to work the ranch. During the paving of El Camino Real in 1914, the road was routed through town and away from the Asistencia. The current road appears to roughly follow the historical road. 5.8.2 Regulatory Setting A summary of the regulatory setting for cultural resources is provided below. Federal Regulations A variety of Federal statutes specifically address paleontological resources. They generally become applicable to specific projects if the project crosses Federal lands or involves a Federal agency license, permits, approval, or funding. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 800 If a project requires a federal permit, or involves federal funding, the project would be considered a federal "undertaking" per 36 CFR 800.2(0) and subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and other federal regulations governing cultural resources. For the Section 106 process, cultural resource studies are undertaken in five sequential phases: (1) inventory and preliminary assessment; (2) testing and evaluation; (3) data recovery; (4) construction monitoring and "emergency" archaeology; and (5) preparation of final reports and curation of collections. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 16 USC 470) The NHPA sets forth national policy for protecting historic properties. Under Section 106 federal agencies are mandated to take into account the effect of federal undertakings on historic properties owned by federal agencies or affected by federally funded or federally approved undertakings. The NHPA also established the National Register of Historic Places and state historic preservation programs administered by a State Historic Preservation Officer. It established the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, an independent agency that is responsible for implementing Section 106. The Advisory Council Section 106 regulations are found at 36 CFR §800-800.16. National Register Regulations are published in 36 CFR §60, and Determination of Eligibility Regulations are published in 36 CFR §63. Section 106 of the NHPA does not apply to paleontological resources unless the paleontological specimens are found in culturally related contexts (e.g., fossil shell included as a mortuary offering in a burial or a culturally-related site such as petrified wood locale used as a chipped stone quarry). In such instances the materials are considered cultural resources and are treated in the manner



prescribed for the site in question; mitigation being almost exclusively limited to sites determined eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It should be emphasized that cooperation between the cultural resource and paleontological disciplines is expected in such instances. Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 United States Code [USC] 431-433) The Antiquities Act of 1906 states, in part that any person who shall appropriate, excavate, injure or destroy any historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity, situated on lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States, without the permission of the Secretary of the Department of the Government having jurisdiction over the lands on which said antiquities are situated, shall upon conviction, be fined in a sum of not more than five hundred dollars or be imprisoned for a period of not more than ninety days, or shall suffer both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Although there is no specific mention of natural or paleontological resources in the Act itself, or in the Act's uniform rules and regulations (Title 43 Part 3, Code of Federal Regulations [43 CPR 3]), "objects of antiquity" has been interpreted to include fossils by the National Park Service (NPS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service (FS), and other Federal agencies. Permits to collect fossils on lands administered by Federal agencies are authorized under this Act. Archaeological and Paleontological Salvage (23 USC 305) Statute 23 USC 305 amends the Antiquities Act of 1906. Specifically, it states:

"Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this title to the extent approved as necessary, by the highway department of any State, may be used for archaeological and paleontological salvage in that state in compliance with the Act entitled "An Act for the preservation of American Antiquities," approved June 8, 1906 (PL 59-209, 16 USC431- 433), and State laws where applicable.”

This statute allows funding for mitigation of paleontological resources recovered pursuant to Federal aid highway projects, provided that "excavated objects and information are to be used for public purposes without private gain to any individual or organization" (Federal Register [PR] 46(19):9570). National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 USC 4321) The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs Federal agencies to use all practicable means to "Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage..." (Section 101(b) (4). Regulations for



implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA are found in 40 CFR 1500 1508. If the presence of a significant environmental resource is identified during the scoping process, federal agencies and their agents must take the resource into consideration when evaluating project effects. Consideration of paleontological resources may be required under NEPA when a project is proposed for development on federal land, land under federal jurisdiction, a federal permit is involved, or federal funds are used for the project. The level of consideration depends upon the Federal agency involved. NEPA includes cultural resources preservation within its general policy for environmental protection. It requires the preservation of important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintenance, wherever possible, of an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choices. Cultural resources are considered in the preparation of all NEPA documents. National Registry of Natural Landmarks (16 USC 461-467) The National Natural Landmarks (NNL) program was established in 1962 and is administered under the Historic Sites Act of 1935. Implementing regulations were first published in 1980 under 36 CPR 1212 and the program was re-designated as 36 CPR 62 in 1981. A National Natural Landmark is defined as:

... an area designated by the Secretary of the Interior as being of national significance to the United States because it is an outstanding example(s) of major biological and geological features found within the boundaries of the United States or its Territories or on the Outer Continental Shelf (36 CFR 62.2).

National significance describes:

... an area that is one of the best examples of a biological community or geological feature within a natural region of the United States, including terrestrial communities, landforms, geological features and processes, habitats of native plant and animal species, or fossil evidence of the development of life (36 CFR 62.2).

Federal agencies (e.g., FHWA, ACOE) and their agents (e.g., Caltrans) should consider the existence and location of designated NNLs, and of areas found to meet the criteria for national significance, in assessing the effects of their activities on the environment under section 102(2)( c) of the NEP A (42 USC 4321). The NPS is responsible for providing requested information about the National Natural Landmarks Program for these assessments (36 CPR 62.6(1)). However, other than consideration under NEP A, NNLs are afforded no special



protection. Furthermore, there is no requirement to evaluate a paleontological resource for listing as an NNL. Finally, project proponents (State and local) are not obligated to prepare an application for listing potential NNLs, should such a resource be encountered during project planning and delivery. Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1935 (20 USC 78) Section 305 of the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 (20 USC 78, 78a) gives the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) authority to use Federal funds to salvage archaeological and paleontological sites affected by highway projects. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC 138; 49 USC 1653) The Department of Transportation Act specifically protects public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic sites. Under its provisions, a federally assisted highway project cannot adversely take property of these types unless it can be shown that there is no prudent or feasible alter-native to doing so. Section 4(f) applies only when there is an actual taking of land from or constructive use of a historic property. Section 4(f) evaluation requires documentation of completion of the Section 106 process. Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act does not specifically address paleontological resources. This section of the law places restrictions on the ability of the FHWA to take publicly owned land 4(f) properties (which include parks, recreation areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and National Register of Historic Places eligible or listed properties). Paleontological resources would only be addressed under this law if located within a 4(f) property. California Environmental Quality Act CEQA declares that it is state policy to "take all action necessary to provide the people of this state with ... historic environmental qualities." It further states that public or private projects financed or approved by the state are subject to environmental review by the state. All such projects, unless entitled to an ex-emption, may proceed only after this requirement has been satisfied. CEQA requires detailed studies that analyze the environmental effects of a proposed project. In the event that a project is determined to have a potential significant environmental effect, the act requires that alternative plans and mitigation measures be considered. CEQA includes historic and archaeological resources as integral features of the environment. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Chapter I, Section 21002) states that:

"... it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant



environmental effects of such projects, and that the procedures required are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. "

The CEQA Guidelines (Article I, Section 15002(a) (3) states that one basic purpose of CEQA is to:

"...prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible.”

If paleontological resources are identified during the Initial Study, or other initial project scoping studies, as being within the proposed project area, the lead agency must take those resources into consideration when evaluating project effects. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource. State Executive Order W-26-92 The Governor's Executive Order W-26-92 directs all state agencies to administer the cultural and historic properties under their control, whether state owned or not, in a spirit of stewardship, and to initiate measures to preserve, restore, and maintain significant state-owned properties. It specifically requires agencies to develop management plans for their significant heritage resources, and to complete the inventories of their state-owned historical resources as directed in PRC §5024. California Administrative Code Four sections of the California Administrative Code (Title 14, State Division of Beaches and Parks) administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation CDPR) address paleontological resources. These include:

Section 4306: Geological Features - "No person shall destroy, disturb, mutilate, or remove earth, sand, gravel, oil, minerals, rocks, or features of caves.” Section 4307: Archaeological Features - "No person shall remove, injure, disfigure, deface, or destroy any object of paleontological, archaeological, or (historical interest or value. " Section 4308: Property - "No person shall disturb, destroy, remove, deface, or injure any property of the state park system. No person shall cut, carve, paint, mark, paste, or fasten on any tree, fence, wall, building, monument, or other property in the state parks, any bill, advertisement, or inscription. "



Section 4309: Special Permits - "Upon a finding that it will be for the best interest of the state park system and for state park purposes, the director may grant a permit to remove, treat, disturb, or destroy plants or animals or geological, historical, archaeological, or paleontological materials, and any person who has been properly granted such a permit shall to that extent not be liable for prosecution for violation of the foregoing.”

These sections of the California Administrative Code establish authority and processes to protect paleontological resources while allowing mitigation through the permit process. California Register of Historical Resources (PRC §5024.1) Public Resources Code § 5024.1 establishes the California Register of Historical Resources. The register is listing of all properties considered to be significant historical resources in the state. The California Register includes all properties listed or determined eligible for listing on the National Register, including properties evaluated under Section 106, and State Historical Landmarks from No. 770 on. The criteria for listing are the same as those of the National Register. The California Register statute specifically provides that historical resources listed, determined eligible for listing on the California Register by the State Historical Resources Commission, or resources that meet the California Register criteria are resources which must be given consideration under CEQA (see above). Other resources, such as resources listed on local registers of historic registers or in local surveys, may be listed if they are determined by the State Historic Resources Commission to be significant in accordance with criteria and procedures to be adopted by the Commission and are nominated; their listing in the California Register, is not automatic. State Owned Historical Resources (PRC §5024-5024.5) Section 5024 requires each state agency to "formulate policies to preserve and maintain, when prudent and feasible, all state-owned historical resources under its jurisdiction." It directs agencies to prepare inventories of all state-owned historical resources and to evaluate them using the National Register and State Historical Landmark criteria. "State-owned structures in freeway rights-of-way shall be inventoried before approval of any undertaking which would alter their original or significant features or fabric, or transfer, relocate, or demolish those structures." Until the inventory is complete, state agencies shall ensure that any structure which might qualify is not inadvertently transferred or altered. In 1992, Section 5024.1 was added, establishing the California Register of Historical Resources to identify the state's historical resources, and "to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change." PRC 5024.5 stipulates that before any state agency alters, transfers, relocates, or demolishes listed historical resources, the agency will give the State Historic Preservation Officer the opportunity to review and



comment on the proposed action. This section further requires state agencies and the State Historic Preservation Officer to adopt prudent and feasible measures to eliminate or mitigate adverse effects to historic structures. Native American Grave Artifacts (PRC §5097.991) This section states that "it is the policy of the state that Native American remains and associated grave artifacts shall be repatriated." Native American Religious Freedom (PRC §5097.9 et seq) Section 5097.9 stipulates it is contrary to the free expression and exercise of Native American religions for public agencies to interfere with or cause severe irreparable damage to any Native American cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine located on public lands. The only exception occurs when it can be clearly and convincingly demonstrated that the public interest and necessity require such action. Disturbance of an Archaeological Site (PRC §5097.5) Section 5097.5 indicates it is a misdemeanor for a person to knowingly and willfully excavate upon, or remove, destroy, injure or deface any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological, or vertebrate paleontological site situated on public lands, except with expressed permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over such lands. As used in this section, “Public Lands” mean lands owned by, or under the jurisdiction of the State, or any city, county, district, authority or public corporations, or any agency thereof. Local Rules and Regulations Few county or city planning documents refer to specific cultural resources policies. The majority of counties and cities in California rely on CEQA, the California Public Resources Code, and in coastal locations, the California Coastal Act of 1976. San Luis Obispo County has adopted these statewide policies as well as stipulating specific policies within the Land Use Element, local Coastal Plan Policies document. 5.8.3 Significance Criteria For environmental assessment documents, "historically significant" sites have been defined as those that meet the criteria for significance defined in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The State Historical Resources Commission is officially responsible for determining whether a property is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a)(1). Section



15064.5(b) and (c) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides direction for determining the significance of impacts to historical and cultural resources: (b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. (1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource

means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.

(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project: (A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those

physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or

(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant;

or (C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those

physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.

(3) Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.

(4) A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.

(5) When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead agency shall consult with the State



Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the preparation of environmental documents.

(c) CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites.

(1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first determine whether the site is an historical resource, as defined in subdivision (a).

(2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.

(3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subdivision (a), but does meet the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 (c-–f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources.

(4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.

CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G(V), states that a project would normally have a significant effect on the environment if it would:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

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

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

A second set of standards used for federal projects or properties in determining whether a site or a resource may be considered "significant" is the eligibility criteria of listing in the NRHP. These federal criteria provided the basis for those CEQA criteria listed above for the California Register.



According to the definition outlined in Section 15064.5 of CEQA an important archaeological resource is one which: Generally, a resource shall be considered by the Lead Agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR. Section 4852) including the following:

Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;

Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or

method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory

or history. 5.8.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.8.4.1 Proposed Project The physical portion of the project consists of the construction of a turnout on the state water pipeline and the construction of approximately 65 linear feet of pipeline at the northeast corner of the community. The pipeline would connect to the existing water distribution system. The physical impacts resulting from the turnout and pipeline would occur in the area already disturbed by the construction of the state water pipeline, that is, they occur in/on top of the pipeline trench. Construction staging would occupy an approximate 5,000 square foot area immediately adjacent to the worksite, utilizing the existing water well easement and access road. Soil disturbance for equipment and material staging would be minimal. Although the project’s disturbance area is small, the area is considered sensitive for both cultural and paleontological resources. A records search was conducted by the County, and a Phase One Archaeological survey was conducted by the County’s archaeologist. No archaeological or historical surface deposits were observed during the surface survey. Proposed improvements occur primarily within areas previously disturbed by underground utility installation and roadway construction. The area was monitored during the construction of the State water line and no buried or surface archaeological deposits were discovered. No known resources would be disturbed by the proposed project. Based on the location of proposed improvements, significant impacts to paleontological resources is unlikely to occur based on the presence of existing development and underground infrastructure, depth of cut, area of disturbance, and underlying alluvial soils within a majority of the area proposed for disturbance. Never-the-



less, disturbed materials could be encountered during construction. It is also important to ensure that construction impacts do not extend beyond the project limits. Therefore, mitigation measures for potential cultural and paleontological impacts include the following: CR-1 During construction, in the event cultural resources are unearthed or discovered, the following standards apply:

a) Construction activities shall cease and the Public Works Environmental Programs Division shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. The County shall implement the mitigation as required by the Environmental Coordinator.

b) In the event archaeological resources are found to include human

remains, or in any other case where human remains are discovered during construction, the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the Public Works Environmental Programs Division so that proper disposition may be accomplished.

After implementation of the listed mitigation measures, residual impacts to cultural and paleontological resources would be less than significant. 5.8.4.2 Water Conservation No adverse cultural and paleontological impacts would be generated by the water conservation alternative. 5.8.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.8]. Impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the Santa Margarita area are similar to those identified for the State Water Project since both projects consist of pipelines through the community. Option A This option would connect the community to the Nacimiento Water Project by wheeling the water through the Atascadero Mutual Water Company. The portion of the Nacimiento project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita



to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. Since the CSA 23 connection would not be laid in the same trench with the main line due to future maintenance considerations, it would essentially extend the project length by three miles and its construction footprint width by about 25 feet. The Santa Margarita Pipeline would pass through or in close proximity to at least 8 cultural resources sites. While avoidance of some of the sites may be possible, it is assumed that more intrusive mitigation measures would be required at one or more of these sites. According to the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, the impacts to cultural sites are considered significant but mitigable to a level of less than significant. Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using NWP supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take NWP water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. Similar to all of the alternatives that involve the construction of new wells or new pipelines, it is likely that construction would impact archaeological resources. While avoidance of some of the sites may be possible, it is assumed that more intrusive mitigation measures would be required at one or more of these sites. As with the other alternatives, the impacts to cultural sites are considered significant but mitigable to a level of less than significant. Option C This option would connect the NWP directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. As noted above, it is likely that construction would impact archaeological resources. While avoidance of some of the sites may be possible, it is assumed that more intrusive mitigation measures would be required at one or more of these sites. As with the other alternatives, the impacts to cultural sites are considered significant but mitigable to a level of less than significant.



5.8.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries, which would involve a degree of ground disturbance. Connecting the new wells to the existing distribution system would also require ground disturbance. Given the high level of sensitivity of the area as regards cultural and paleontological resources, the potential for new wells and pipelines to encounter important resources is considered high. However, as they would be constructed within or close to the community boundaries, it is also likely that new wells and pipeline connections would be built in areas already disturbed by the construction of roads and underground utilities. Also, once specific well locations are identified, it is likely that adjustments in the location of the well and pipeline route could be made to avoid or lessen impacts. Option A This option would construct a new deep well near well #3. Depending on the exact location chosen, avoidance of archaeological resources is probable. Option B This option would development of a new well on the elementary school property. Depending on the exact location chosen, avoidance of archaeological resources is probable. Option C This option involves the development of a new well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community. While avoidance of archaeological resources is probable, the construction of new pipelines may result in impacts to resources, similar to that for the other pipeline alternatives. While avoidance of some of the sites may be possible, it is assumed that more intrusive mitigation measures would be required at one or more of these sites. Mitigation measures for potential cultural and paleontological impacts common to all build alternatives include the following: CR-2 Prior to completion of final design, the county will conduct a phase I archaeological survey, conducted by a qualified archaeologist approved by the Environmental Coordinator that assesses the potential impacts of all ground disturbing activities. The project shall implement the recommendations of the archaeologist, as required by the Environmental Coordinator. Recommendations may include Phase II testing and/or data recovery.




CR-3 If cultural sites are discovered near work areas during the Phase I survey, and if recommended by the project archaeologist,, the County will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all earth disturbing activities, per the approved monitoring plan. If any significant archaeological resources or human remains are found during monitoring, work shall stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals. CR-4 Upon completion of all monitoring/mitigation activities the archaeologist will submit a report to the Environmental Coordinator summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met. After implementation of the listed mitigation measures, residual impacts to cultural and paleontological resources resulting from the additional groundwater wells alternative would be less than significant. 5.8.4.5 No Project No adverse cultural and paleontological impacts would be generated by the no-project alternative. 5.8.5 Cumulative Impacts Impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are generally site specific; therefore, cumulative impacts are not expected to occur. However, it should be noted that this conclusion is based on the premise that all feasible avoidance and mitigation measures attributable to each project are diligently undertaken. Because of the potential magnitude of cultural and paleontological impacts posed by the cumulative project list, failure to appropriately apply mitigation measures could diminish the body of intact cultural and paleontological resources in the area to the degree that substantial cumulative impacts would result.

5.9 Land Use

5.9 LAND USE Section 15125(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR discuss any potential inconsistencies between a proposed project and applicable General Plan Elements and Area Plans. CEQA Appendix G states:

"a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located. “

Therefore, this section of the SEIR provides a brief overview of the goals, policies, and programs of the County of San Luis Obispo's General Plan, and other County policies related to the use and disposition of State Water. The comments provided in this section are advisory, because the final determination of consistency with the General Plan and other Board policies lies with the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 5.9.1 Environmental Setting The community of Santa Margarita was laid out by the Pacific Improvement Company, a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific Railroad, in 1889. The community encompasses an area of approximately 300 acres, bounded on all sides by the Santa Margarita Ranch. Land use within the community boundaries follows the historic pattern of placing commercial and industrial uses alongside the two main transportation corridors that pass through the community; the railroad (now Union Pacific) and State highway 58, formerly a portion of U.S. Highway 101, or El Camino Real. Residential uses are located in rectangular blocks laid out behind the highway/railroad corridor. Residential uses primarily consist of single-family residences on individual lots, with some multi-family and mobile home park development. Community services are limited to a small grocery, general merchandise stores (primarily tourist serving), and small food service businesses. Industrial/commercial uses typically consist of a beverage distribution center, lumber yard(s), construction yard(s), feed store and similar businesses. The community is also served by a U.S Post Office branch and an elementary school. Land use bordering the community is agricultural. 5.9.2 Regulatory Setting and Discussion Santa Margarita is an unincorporated community governed by the policies and standards contained in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. The following San Luis Obispo County land use planning documents are applicable to the proposed project:


5.9 Land Use

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

Framework for Planning (Inland), Revised October 2009 San Luis Obispo County Code Title 22, Land Use Ordinance, Revised

September 2010 Salinas River Area Plan (Land Use and Circulation Element) Revised

October 2009 Agriculture Element, Revised May 2010 Conservation and Open Space Element, Adopted May 2010

The Land Use Element (LUE) for the San Luis Obispo County General Plan establishes the patterns for land use within the county, and sets out standards for development. The LUE consists of three major components: the Framework for Planning, the Area Plans, and the official land use (zoning) maps. The Framework for Planning provides an overview of the county's land use policies, defines the land use categories (zoning) applied to properties, and the allowed uses within each category. The Framework for Planning - Inland Area establishes general goals and policies for those unincorporated areas of the County which are located outside of the coastal zone. The eleven inland Area Plans contain policies, programs, land use regulations, and maps for specific geographic areas within the county. The Agriculture Element contains goals and policies designed to address agricultural issues, while the Conservation and Open Space Element addresses resource conservation relative to air quality, biological resources, cultural, energy, mineral, open space, soil, visual, and water resources together with the goals and policies to protect and preserve the County’s open space resources. Santa Margarita is located within the Salinas River Area Plan. Within each plan are development standards specific to that area. The Framework for Planning is used together with the adopted Area Plans, Land Use Maps, and the County's Land Use Ordinance when reviewing and evaluating new development. Framework for Planning Chapter 4 of Framework for Planning contains general policies and implementing strategies for public services, including water supply. Policies and strategies relevant to this project include:

Policy 1: 1. Keep the amount, location and rate of growth allowed by the Land Use Element within the sustainable capacity of resources, public services and facilities. Implementing Strategies: a. Avoid the use of public resources, services and facilities beyond their renewable capacities, and monitor new development to ensure that its resource demands will not exceed existing and planned capacities or service levels.


5.9 Land Use

b. Share the cost of additional services and facilities among those who most immediately benefit and the entire community. c. Locate new public service facilities as close as possible to users, allowing for sufficient buffers to protect adjacent rural and agricultural areas. d. Direct the extension of urban services, as listed in Table H, to areas within urban and village reserve lines, and restrict urban services from being provided outside urban or village areas.

Policy 3: Provide additional public resources, services and facilities in sufficient time to avoid overburdening existing resources, services and facilities while sustaining their availability for future generations. Implementing Strategies: a. Conduct long-term planning (20+ years) to fund and provide additional, sustainable public resources, services and facilities in sufficient time to avoid overburdening existing resources, services and facilities. b. Schedule development to occur when needed services are available or can be supplied concurrently.

As described in chapter 2, water use in the community of Santa Margarita currently exceeds sustainable levels as evidenced by potential water supply shortages during periods of prolonged drought. Consequently, the proposed project will help restore the balance between water use and water supply. Chapter 7 of Framework for Planning contains guidelines and policies for combining designations and proposed public facilities. Combining designations are special overlay land use categories applied in areas of the County for which special characteristics of public value or hazard are present. These special characteristics, which may be related to location, terrain, man-made features, or biological resources, require more detailed project review in order to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impact. The proposed project is outside the boundary of any combining designations; however, one combining designation is located within the project area and could be encountered by one or more project alternatives. As described in Framework for Planning, Inland Area, the relevant combining designation is:

Flood Hazard (FH): Applied to flood-prone areas identified through review of available data from various Federal, State, or local agencies. Also includes flood elevations of existing lakes and reservoirs.

Substantial portions of the community of Santa Margarita are located within the Flood Hazard combining designation (See Figure 5.3-1, 100 Year Floodplain). Although the County has, over the last several years, implemented efforts to reduce flooding in the community, the flood hazard designation will remain.


5.9 Land Use

However, the project as proposed will not have any effect on the extent or duration of flooding in the community. Also, because it is intended to relieve water supply shortages during times of drought, it will not substantially increase the number of residents exposed to flood hazards. New or redevelopment which may occur as the potential for periodic water shortages is reduced, and which may choose to locate in flood hazard areas, will be subject to all of the requirements contained in the Land Use Ordinance for development in those areas, thereby mitigating any secondary flood hazard effects of this project. Chapter 7 policies for proposed public facilities relevant to this project include: Conformity of Proposed Public Projects with the General Plan

When the acquisition or disposal of real property, or the construction of structures, is proposed by a public agency within the unincorporated area, the proposal should be evaluated for consistency with the county General Plan before the action is authorized. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65100, the Department of Planning and Building is authorized to prepare and issue conformity reports that are required by California Government Code Section 65402. The time frame for issuance of a conformity report is 40 days from submittal. The Planning Director shall place notice of completed conformity reports on the agenda of the Planning Commission at its next regular meeting. Appeals of the Department's determination may be made in accordance with the provisions of the Land Use Ordinance. Upon an appeal, the effective date of the determination shall be extended until the date of the final appeal decision [Amended 1989, Ord. 2411]. The types of actions for which conformity reports are required include the following:

1. Sale, exchange or acquisition of real property by a public agency or entity also including gifts, dedications or disposal and abandonment;

2. Government construction projects, such as schools and other public buildings, communication facilities, parks;

3. Master plans for parks, streets, government facilities; 4. Proposed major public works as described in Government Code

Section 65401, which should be reviewed annually as described in the Section, "The Capital Improvement Program" in Chapter 8;

5. Other planning for eventual projects that will need conformity review.

The project does not include the acquisition, sale or exchange of real property, or the construction of new structures, therefore, a conformity report is not required.


5.9 Land Use

Water Supply Facilities An adequate water supply system is a vital necessity to nearly every land use. Demand for water is generated by: urban and suburban uses; irrigated agriculture; recreational uses, including fish and wildlife; power plant cooling and energy production; environmental enhancement; water quality control and groundwater recharge; flood control; and navigation. County plans for water supply facility development are contained in the Master Water and Sewerage Element of the General Plan. Water storage facilities are addressed in the Land Use Ordinance. Water service should not be extended beyond urban services lines where such extension would impair the adequacy of service within the USL, or where such extensions have not been programmed or are not in conformity with the general plan. Urban and suburban uses with densities of 1 dwelling unit per 2-1/2 acres or greater should be served by a community water system. Residential rural and agricultural uses should rely upon on-site wells. In rural areas outside the urban reserve line that are experiencing long-term physical hardship due to local groundwater shortages, it may become appropriate to establish an urban level community service system for water service only. Prior to establishment of community water service within a rural area, Article 9 of the Land Use Ordinance and the applicable area plan should be amended to provide the boundaries, policies and standards that would apply to a specific hardship area and its community water system.

The proposed project is consistent with the above policy because it supports the continued viability of an existing urban water system that serves water within the Urban Services Line. County Master Water Plan The proposed project is consistent with San Luis Obispo County's Master Water Plan. The Master Water Plan recognizes that continued reliance on groundwater supplies may result in significant damage to local aquifers, and recommends that a variety of water projects be developed to diversify water sources, reduce reliance on groundwater, and meet long-term forecasted water demand. Salinas River Area Plan The project is located within the Salinas River Planning Area, as is the entire community of Santa Margarita. Because water pipelines are an allowed use in all of the affected land use categories, the project is considered consistent with the Area Plan. As a public project, it is not required to comply with County land


5.9 Land Use

use ordinances; however the intent of ordinance provisions would be met by the project’s compliance with the mitigation measures contained in this SEIR. Agriculture Element Agricultural Policy 11 is especially relevant to the proposed project and the alternatives because the policy addresses the potential competition between agricultural and urban water supplies:

AGP11: Agricultural Water Supplies.

a) Maintain water resources for production agriculture, both in quality and quantity, so as to prevent the loss of agriculture due to competition for water with urban and suburban development.

b) Do not approve proposed general plan amendments or rezonings that result in increased residential density or urban expansion if the subsequent development would adversely affect: (1) water supplies and quality, or (2) groundwater recharge capability needed for agricultural use.

c) Do not approve facilities to move groundwater from areas of overdraft to any other area, as determined by the Resource Management System in the Land Use Element.

Discussion: The purpose of this policy is to strongly promote agricultural uses. Where urban development uses groundwater supplies, surrounding agricultural uses are often eventually displaced. By maintaining groundwater supplies primarily for irrigated agriculture uses, the county can encourage continued and expanded agricultural uses. In addition, this could reduce the chances that urban and suburban development will diminish recharge, deplete agricultural water supplies, degrade water quality, or make those supplies uneconomical for agriculture to use.

The project is consistent with Agricultural Policy 11 because it seeks to take advantage of an imported and underutilized water supply to achieve drought reliability, rather than compete with local agriculture for additional groundwater supplies. Conservation and Open Space Element The Conservation and Open Space Element addresses resource conservation relative to air quality, biological resources, cultural, energy, mineral, open space, soil, visual, and water resources together with and goals and policies to protect and preserve the County’s open space resources. The following discussion focuses on those portions of the Conservation and Open Space Element that are relevant to the proposed project.


5.9 Land Use

Chapter 2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element focuses on air quality. As examined in section 5.4 of this EIR, the project and its alternatives would not result in any significant short term or long term impacts to air quality, therefore, the project is substantially consistent with the County’s air quality goals and policies. Chapter 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element focuses on biological resources. As examined in section 5.7 of this EIR, the project would not result in any significant short term or long term impacts to biological resources; therefore, the project is substantially consistent with the County’s air quality goals and policies. However, as also examined in section 5.7 of this EIR, any alternative involving additional extraction from the alluvial aquifer could result in a significant impact on biological resources. Chapter 4 of the Conservation and Open Space Element focuses on cultural resources. As examined in section 5.8 of this EIR, the project and its alternatives would not result in any significant impacts to cultural resources; therefore, the project is substantially consistent with the County’s cultural resources goals and policies. Chapter 10 of the Conservation and Open Space Element focuses on water resources. According to the document:

“In addition to the [Integrated Regional Water Management Plan], this chapter is closely related to the Strategic Growth principles adopted by the Board of Supervisors that call for directing most growth to cities and communities while conserving agricultural resources and rural character in the rural areas. In order to do so, safe, reliable, and sustainable water supplies will need to be provided in urban areas. At the same time, groundwater supplies will need to be protected for agriculture in accordance with the Agriculture Element.”

The above paragraph describes the County’s approach to addressing the tension between agricultural and urban water users when supplies are limited. Because it is located in the midst of an agricultural area, the community of Santa Margarita’s efforts to ensure a safe, reliable, and sustainable water supply will necessarily need to consider and account for County policies that protect the ability of agriculture to also access a reliable water source. The following Conservation and Open Space goals and policies are relevant to the proposed project and the setting in which it is proposed:


5.9 Land Use

Goal 1: The County will have a reliable and secure regional water supply. Policy WR 1.1 Protect water supplies Continue to coordinate with water suppliers and managers to identify water management strategies to protect existing and secure new water supplies. Policy WR 1.2 Conserve Water Resources Water conservation is acknowledged to be the primary method to serve the county’s increasing population. Water conservation programs should be implemented countywide before more expensive and environmentally costly forms of new water are secured. Policy WR 1.3 New Water Supply Development of new water supplies should focus on efficient use of our existing resources. Use of reclaimed water, interagency cooperative projects, desalination of contaminated groundwater supplies, and groundwater recharge projects should be considered prior to using imported sources of water or seawater desalination, or dams and on-stream reservoirs. Policy WR 1.4 Use reclaimed water The County will be a leader in the use of reclaimed water. Support expanding the use of reclaimed water to make up at least 5% of total water use by 2015 and 10% of total water use by 2020. Policy WR 1.5 Interagency projects Help implement interagency projects, including emergency interties between systems, jointly developed facilities, water exchanges, and other methods of enhancing reliability through cooperative efforts. Policy WR 1.6 Water dependent species Protect water sources for water-dependent species and the continuity of riparian communities. Policy WR 1.7 Agricultural operations Groundwater management strategies will give priority to agricultural operations. Protect agricultural water supplies from competition by incompatible development through land use controls. Policy WR 1.8 Use of surface water projects Water from surface water projects (e.g. Lopez Lake, Lake Nacimiento) will only be used to serve development within urban and village reserve lines and will not be used to serve development in rural areas.


5.9 Land Use

Policy WR 1.9 Discourage new water systems Enable expansion of public services by community services districts and County service areas to serve contiguous development when water is available. Strongly discourage the formation of new water and sewer systems serving urban development at the fringe and outside of urban or village reserve lines or services lines. Strongly discourage the formation of new mutual or private water companies in groundwater basins with Resource Management System Levels of Severity I, II, or III, except where needed to resolve health and safety concerns. Policy WR 1.10 Water wheeling When water wheeling is proposed to serve new development, demonstrate that the conveyance facility has an adequate unused capacity in accordance with the California Water Code. Policy WR 1.11 Reduce RMS alert levels The County will work with local agencies to reduce Resource Management System alert levels for water supply and water systems from recommended or certified Levels of Severity II or III to Level of Severity I or better by 2020. Policy WR 1.12 Impacts of new development Accurately assess and mitigate the impacts of new development on water supply. At a minimum, comply with the provisions of Senate Bills 610 and 221. Policy WR 1.13 Density increases in rural areas Do not approve General Plan amendments or land divisions that increase the density or intensity of non-agricultural uses in rural areas that have a recommended or certified Level of Severity II or III for water supply until a Level of Severity I or better is reached, unless there is an overriding public need. Policy WR 1.14 Avoid net increase in water use Avoid a net increase in non-agricultural water use in groundwater basins that are recommended or certified as Level of Severity II or III for water supply. Place limitations on further land divisions in these areas until plans are in place and funded to ensure that the safe yield will not be exceeded. Policy WR 1.15 Desalination opportunities Support the expansion of desalination opportunities only if other new water sources are not feasible (e.g. increased efficiency and conservation, taking full allotments of existing surface water projects such as the Nacimiento Water Project). Evaluation of proposed desalination projects will balance water supply needs with potential effects on biological


5.9 Land Use

resources, especially marine resources. Desalination projects will be powered by non-fossil fuel sources where feasible.

The project is generally consistent with goal 1 because it uses existing State Water supplies and infrastructure to provide a secure water supply for existing development in an existing urban area. The project would not support additional growth and development outside the Urban Services Line, and does not compete with agriculture for existing groundwater. Policy WR 1.2 identifies water conservation as the primary method to serve the county’s population. Therefore, in order to fully comply with policy 1.2, the project should include water conservation as an element of the action alternative. Policy WR 1.3 encourages a focus on efficient use of our existing resources prior to developing new sources, and lists reclaimed water, interagency cooperative projects, desalination of contaminated groundwater supplies, and groundwater recharge projects as alternatives to using imported sources of water. Inclusion of water conservation would partially address this policy, while the project has examined the listed alternatives and found them to be infeasible for Santa Margarita.

Goal 2: The County will collaboratively manage groundwater resources to ensure sustainable supplies for all beneficial uses. Policy WR 2.1 Groundwater quality assessments Prepare groundwater quality assessments, including recommended monitoring, and management measures. Policy WR 2.2 Groundwater basin reporting programs Support monitoring and reporting programs for groundwater basins in the region. Policy WR 2.3 Well permits Require all well permits to be consistent with the adopted groundwater management plans. Policy WR 2.4 Groundwater recharge Where conditions are appropriate, promote groundwater recharge with high-quality water.

Although not directly a groundwater project, the proposed action is consistent with goal 2 because it helps ensure sustainable groundwater supplies for all users during drought periods by accessing a readily available alternative supply source.


5.9 Land Use

Goal 3: Excellent water quality will be maintained for the health of people and natural communities Policy WR 3.1 Prevent water pollution Take actions to prevent water pollution, consistent with federal and state water policies and standards, including but not limited to the federal Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Policy WR 3.2 Protect watersheds Protect watersheds, groundwater and aquifer recharge areas, and natural drainage systems from potential adverse impacts of development projects. Policy WR 3.3 Improve groundwater quality Protect and improve groundwater quality from point and non-point source pollution, including nitrate contamination; MTBE and other industrial, agricultural, and commercial sources of contamination; naturally occurring mineralization, boron, radionuclides, geothermal contamination; and seawater intrusion and salts. Policy WR 3.4 Water quality restoration Pursue opportunities to participate in programs or projects for water quality restoration and remediation with agencies and organizations such as the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and Resource Conservation Districts in areas where water quality is impaired.

The project has no direct implications for water quality, although it will indirectly result in a minor benefit to groundwater quality by avoiding extreme over pumping during drought periods by accessing a readily available alternative supply source, therefore, it is consistent with goal 3.

Goal 4: Per capita potable water use in the County will decline by 20 percent by 2020 Policy WR 4.1 Reduce water use Employ water conservation programs to achieve an overall 20% reduction in per capita residential and commercial water use in the unincorporated area by 2020. Continue to improve agricultural water use efficiency consistent with Policy AGP 10 in the Agricultural Element. Policy WR 4.2 Water pricing structures Support water-pricing structures to encourage conservation by individual water users and seek to expand the use of conservation rate structures in areas with Levels of Severity II and III for water supply.


5.9 Land Use

Policy WR 4.3 Water conservation The County will be a leader in water conservation efforts. Policy WR 4.4 Re-use wastewater The County will work with wastewater system operators to identify and implement programs for reuse of treated wastewater, particularly in landscaping, irrigation, parks, and public facilities. Policy WR 4.5 Water for recharge Promote the use of supplemental water such as reclaimed sewage effluent and water from existing impoundments to prevent overdraft of groundwater. Consider new ways to recharge underground basins and to expand the use of reclaimed water. Encourage the eventual abandonment of ocean outfalls. Policy WR 4.6 Graywater Encourage the use of graywater systems, rainwater catchments, and other water reuse methods in new development and renovation projects, consistent with state and local water quality regulations. Policy WR 4.7 Low Impact Development Require Low Impact Development (LID) practices in all discretionary and land division projects and public projects to reduce, treat, infiltrate, and manage urban runoff. Policy WR 4.8 Efficient irrigation Support efforts of the resource conservation districts, California Polytechnic State University (CalPoly), the University of California Cooperative Extension, and others to research, develop, and implement more efficient irrigation techniques.

As proposed, the project is not consistent with goal 4 because it describes water conservation as an alternative, rather than a part of the proposed action. However, the project can be brought into consistency with goal 4 by including water conservation as a part of all of the other action alternatives.

Goal 5: The best possible tools and methods available will be used to manage water resources Policy WR 5.1 Watershed approach The County will consider watersheds and groundwater basins in its approach to managing water resources in order to include ecological values and economic factors in water resources development.


5.9 Land Use

Policy WR 5.2 Climate change The County will consider ongoing research on long-term changes in climate and precipitation patterns in the county and region and incorporate relevant data in its approach to managing water resources. Policy WR 5.3 Cooperative water planning and management Continue to support cooperative, interregional water planning efforts such as the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, the Resource Management System, and the Water Master Plan.

The project is considered consistent with goal 5 because it considers community needs, agricultural needs, and ecological needs along with the economics of water supply to develop a project that addresses drought reliability while minimizing unintended consequences related to unplanned growth, conflicts with agricultural water users, and important biological resources.

Goal 6: Damage to life, structure, and natural resources from floods will be avoided According to the Conservation Element: “The County’s Safety Element, Land Use Ordinance, and Hazard Mitigation Plan discuss the potential risks to life, structures, and natural resources from flooding, and identify goals, policies, programs, and standards to minimize risks. Please consult those documents to help evaluate the potential flooding risks or impacts of development, and its consistency with County plans and programs. The County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, through the County Public Works Department, has the authority to construct and maintain flood control improvements on major drainage facilities located throughout the county for the purpose of protecting life and property from flood hazards. The County strictly enforces flood hazard regulations in order to reduce flood damage in poorly drained areas and other areas prone to flooding, such as portions of Los Osos, Avila Valley, Santa Margarita, Cambria, and Oceano. The flood hazard regulations also enable the County to identify high-risk areas and participate in the federal flood insurance program. The County’s Land Use Ordinance and Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance (Titles 22 and 23 of the County Code) include standards that require preparation and submittal of drainage plans for new development. These regulations specify when drainage plans are required, the contents of an adequate drainage plan, drainage standards, and the plan review and approval process. The Land Use Ordinances also include development standards for areas that have a Flood Hazard (FH) combining designation (overlay). Areas within the FH combining designation have the potential to be inundated by a 100-year flood, and are identified in Table WR-2 FEMA Flood Zones are depicted on Figure WR-4.”


5.9 Land Use

As noted above under combining designations, Substantial portions of the community of Santa Margarita are located within the Flood Hazard combining designation. Although the County has, over the last several years, implemented efforts to reduce flooding in the community, the flood hazard designation will remain. However, the project as proposed will not have any effect on the extent or duration of flooding in the community. Also, because it is intended to relieve water supply shortages during times of drought, it will not substantially increase the number of residents exposed to flood hazards. New or redevelopment which may occur as the potential for periodic water shortages is reduced, and which may choose to locate in flood hazard areas, will be subject to all of the requirements contained in the Land Use Ordinance for development in those areas, thereby mitigating any secondary flood hazard effects of this project. County’s State Water Policies In January, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors adopted new policies for sale or transfer of any portion of the County's excess entitlement with the understanding there will be no permanent sales outside the County. Based on the definition that the State Water Project "Excess Entitlement" is the portion of the total entitlement that is not contracted to others for their deliverable or drought buffer uses, the priority of use will be as follows:

1. Prior to transferring the excess entitlement for any other use, contractors of state water entitlement with capacity in Phase II of the Coastal Aqueduct shall have the first right to utilize the excess entitlement for "drought buffer" (reliability) purposes under the terms of a drought buffer agreement.

The project is consistent with this policy because existing State Water contractors have and continue to have the option of establishing drought buffers.

2. Preference shall be given to local agencies and water purveyors

regardless of whether a transfer is on an annual, multi-year, or a permanent basis.

The project is consistent with this policy because it will operate to the benefit of CSA23, which is a local agency.

3. No permanent transfer of the excess entitlement for use outside District

boundaries shall be made prior to a final update of the District's Master Water Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and then only if the transfer is consistent with the then adopted Master Plan (see item #7).


5.9 Land Use

The project is generally consistent with this policy because no “partner” agencies have been identified; if a partner agency is outside the District (San Luis Obispo County) boundaries, then any agreements would need to conform to this policy. The County Water Master Plan update is underway.

4. No multi-year transfers for use outside District boundaries shall be made

with a term in excess of five years prior to a final update to the District's Master Water Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors, and then out of District transfers can only take place if the transfer is consistent with the adopted Master Plan.

The project is consistent with this policy because any transfer contracts will comply with the five year requirement.

5. On any out-of-District transfer, preference shall be given to those that

provide: a) revenues that recover current costs and some or all of the District's past costs, b) maintain the District's right to use the water in the future, or c) which are used for environmental mitigation.

The project is generally consistent with this policy because CSA 23 will cover all of the associated costs.

6. The Public Works Director is authorized to determine the annual amount

of the excess entitlement to transfer to the SWP "Turn back Pools" established under the existing terms of State Water Agreements. In making that determination, the Public Works Director shall first consider local needs and how the use of the Turn back Pool might impact other potential transfers.

This policy does not apply to the proposed project.

7. The above policies were adopted by the Board of Supervisors with the

understanding that there will be no permanent sales outside the District.

Any transfer contracts will be consistent with this policy 5.9.3 Significance Criteria As noted above, the criteria for judging a project’s land use consistency is established by appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines:

"a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located".


5.9 Land Use

5.9.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.9.4.1 Proposed Project The proposed project is inconsistent with policy WR 1.2 which identifies water conservation as the primary method to serve the county’s population. Therefore, in order to fully comply with policy 1.2, the project should include water conservation as an element of the action alternative. The project would have no significant impacts to land use because it is compatible with the underlying land use designations outlined in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. Mitigation Measures LU-1: The project will incorporate the comprehensive water conservation measures described under the water conservation alternative as an integral part of the proposed action. 5.9.4.2 Water Conservation Implementation of water conservation plans is consistent with numerous goals and policies of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan, especially those contained in the Conservation Element. Under this alternative, no new water infrastructure would be developed, but the stated goals and objectives of the project would be at least partially met through water conservation. However, water conservation alone typically could not fully meet the community’s water needs along with those of adjacent agricultural and biological resources that are also dependent on local groundwater sources. Consequently, it is expected that any water diverted to the community during drought periods would necessarily result in a reduction of supplies available for agricultural uses. Therefore, this alternative is likely not consistent with polices contained in the County’s Agriculture Element. In a similar fashion, because water supplies on the Ranch would be directed away from biological resources, this alternative is inconsistent with the County’s Conservation Element and the Open Space Element. 5.9.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential land use impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.9]. Option A The Nacimiento EIR concludes that:

“There would be no significant impacts to land use resulting from the proposed project as the proposed project is compatible with the underlying


5.9 Land Use

land use designations outlined in San Luis Obispo County’s General Plan, and with those of affected Federal, State, and local government entities.”

However, subsequent to the completion of the Nacimiento EIR, the County adopted the new Conservation and Open Space Element, which gives priority to water conservation as the means to address water supply shortages. Therefore this alternative would be inconsistent with local plans and policies, unless it includes water conservation, as with the proposed project. Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. To the extent that water supplied during drought periods is not being directed away from agricultural needs, this option would be consistent with local plans and policies. However, it is difficult to establish that the Santa Margarita Ranch, surrounding the community of Santa Margarita, would not be subject to the same declines in groundwater as the community during periods of prolonged drought. Consequently, and although groundwater could be provided from portions of the basin not currently utilized by the community, it is expected that any water diverted to the community during drought periods would necessarily result in a reduction of supplies available for agricultural uses. Therefore, this option is likely not consistent with polices contained in the County’s Agriculture Element. In a similar fashion, because water supplies on the Ranch would be directed away from biological resources, this option is inconsistent with the County’s Conservation Element and the Open Space Element Option C Similar to option A, this alternative would connect the community to the Nacimiento Water Project via a new water treatment plant. As with the Nacimiento Water project itself, this option would not result in significant impacts to land use, if it is modified to include water conservation as part of the proposed action. 5.9.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternatives would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries, together with connections to the existing water distribution system. The discussion below


5.9 Land Use

assumes that all groundwater alternatives would be accompanied by the water conservation alternative. Option A This option would establish a new deep well near well #3, at the north-eastern edge of the community. To the extent that the well taps bedrock aquifers not currently utilized by agriculture, this option would be consistent with local plans and policies to protect the environment. Option B This option is similar to option A, but locates the new deep well into the bedrock aquifer on the school property. To the extent that the well taps bedrock aquifers not currently utilized by agriculture, this option would be consistent with local plans and policies to protect the environment. Option C This option would establish a new alluvial well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community. Santa Margarita Creek is located in an agricultural area that utilizes shallow groundwater to irrigate pastures and farm fields. In addition, Santa Margarita Creek supports the federally listed threatened steelhead trout, along with other state and federally recognized sensitive species. Tapping this alluvial aquifer during times of extended drought may exacerbate already critically low water supplies currently being utilized by agriculture and these sensitive biological resources. Consequently, this alternative would be inconsistent with Agricultural Policy 11 in the County’s Agriculture Element because it would compete with agriculture for limited groundwater supplies during drought. This alternative is also inconsistent with Water Resource Policy 1.6 (Water dependent species), Water Resource Policy 1.7 (Agricultural operations) and Goal 3 (Excellent water quality will be maintained for the health of people and natural communities) in the Conservation and Open Space Element because it could negatively impact sensitive species, compete with agriculture for limited groundwater supplies during drought, and result in diminished water quality through over pumping. As with the proposed project, the groundwater alternatives would not result in significant impacts to land use as the installation of new wells and pipeline connections is compatible with the underlying land use designations outlined in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. 5.9.4.5 No Project Under this alternative, the project would not go forward and the stated goals and objectives of the project would not be met. During drought periods the community


5.9 Land Use


would be in competition for water along with adjacent agricultural and biological resources that are also dependent on local groundwater sources. Consequently, it is expected that any water diverted to the community during drought periods would necessarily result in a reduction of supplies available for agricultural uses. Therefore, this alternative is likely not consistent with polices contained in the County’s Agriculture Element and Conservation and Open Space Element. In a similar fashion, because water supplies on the Ranch would be directed away from biological resources, this alternative is inconsistent with the County’s Conservation Element and the Open Space Element. 5.9.5 Cumulative Impacts No changes to the existing land use designations are proposed in conjunction with the development of the proposed project; therefore, no cumulative impacts with regards to land use are anticipated.

5.10 Public Services and Utilities

5.10 UTILITIES and PUBLIC SERVICES This section describes the existing condition of utilities and public services in the area and how they might be potentially impacted by the proposed project. Public services that could be affected during construction and operation of the proposed project include water services, energy, fire protection and emergency response, health services, law enforcement, public roads and school facilities. The proposed project may also contribute to increased long-term utility and public service demands in Santa Margarita assuming that the assurance of sufficient water availability during periods of significant drought accommodates planned growth in the community. Impacts from potential population growth are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. 5.10.1 Environmental Setting For the proposed project, environmental setting or baseline conditions would reflect the baseline condition of utilities and public services associated with the project area. Water Utilities and Sources Most of the water in San Luis Obispo County is supplied from groundwater sources--approximately 60% (mostly from the Paso Robles Basin), and from surface reservoirs, such as Santa Margarita Lake (Salinas Reservoir), Lopez Lake, Whale Rock, and Lake Nacimiento. The water demand by San Luis Obispo County, however, is nearing the limits of the available water supplies. In fact, the State Water Project is one of the facilities in place intended to provide additional water supplies to the County. San Luis Obispo County's water planning network consists of 12 Water Planning Areas (WPAs)-1 through 8, 9A-C, and 10. The WPA relevant to the proposed project is WPA 9A (Salinas Area). The three largest communities in WPA 9A (Paso Robles, Atascadero, and Templeton) operate separate water distribution systems. Templeton CSD and Paso Robles have a system inter-tie on 12-inch diameter distribution lines at Highway 46 and Theater Drive. The distance between Templeton's and Atascadero's systems is approximately a mile and a half. Similarly, Santa Margarita's water system does not adjoin any other community systems, though the State Water Pipeline and the Nacimiento pipeline run adjacent to CSA 23’s service area and the Salinas Pipeline (which delivers water to City of San Luis Obispo and Cal Poly) runs within close proximity to the service area.



Energy Sources The major sources of energy in California include electricity, natural gas and petroleum-based fuels. Exhibit 5.10-1 summarizes the State energy sources and their production and consumption in California.

Exhibit 5.10-1 California Energy Sources and Consumption in 2007

Type of Energy Source Produced in State Imported Total

ConsumedElectricity, Giga-watt hours 209,856 (70%) 89,938 (30%) 299,794

Natural gas, billion feet 313.9 (13%) 2,100.7 (87%) 2,414.6

Petroleum based fuels (1,000 barrels) 251,445 (39%) 387,744 (61%) 639,189Source: California Energy Commission Electricity production in California is mostly fueled by natural gas, hydropower, and nuclear energy. Other energy sources that are used for electricity production include coal, solar and wind power, biomass/waste, geothermal energy and oil. Natural gas is the number one fuel used to produce electricity in California with oil-based fuels (such as fuel oil) being the least used for electricity production. Electricity produced with natural gas as a fuel accounts for more than 37.4% (84,703 GWh/year) of all electricity produced in the State, with oil being only 0.02% (55 GWh/year). Electric services in San Luis Obispo County are provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). PG&E operates one power plant in SLO County: the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. Dynegy operates the former PG&E Morro Bay Fossil Fuel Plant. Electricity supplied to San Luis Obispo County comes from a variety of sources; sources may range geographically from the Pacific Northwest to the Southwest, depending on market conditions. Electrical energy deliveries to all of the County users in 2007 equaled 1,762 million kWh, of which 1090.5 million kWh were to non-residential users (California Energy Commission 2007). Fire Protection and Emergency Response Services The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection/San Luis Obispo County Fire Department (CDF/SLO County Fire) provides fire protection, emergency response, and rescue services to the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. Areas not served by CDF/SLO County Fire, such as the community of Santa Margarita, have established fire or community services districts or are incorporated cities with their own fire departments. CDF provides structural fire protection and emergency services to all unincorporated areas, except areas served by the independent fire agencies as mentioned above. The San Luis Obispo County Office of Emergency Services is an emergency management agency with responsibilities that include coordination of emergency



and disaster preparedness planning, response, and recovery with and between local, State, and Federal agencies, such as the San Luis Obispo County Fire Department, Sheriff's Department, and County Emergency Medical Services Agency. Law Enforcement The San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department provides police protection and emergency services to all unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. Areas not served by the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department are incorporated cities, which are served by local police departments, and State highways, which are served by the California Highway Patrol. Routine law enforcement duties in Santa Margarita are provided by the Sheriff, while the Highway Patrol enforces traffic regulations on State Highway 58 which runs through the community. School Facilities San Luis Obispo County schools are divided into ten school districts. Current enrollments at most of the County's schools exceed design capacities. This is accomplished through the utilization of additional temporary classrooms placed on the individual school sites. However, estimates provided by the school districts indicate that there is a practical limit to the number of temporary classrooms that can be added to a site, beyond which the "core" facilities become so over-stressed that the educational environment begins to deteriorate. Each district, therefore, has calculated an estimated maximum capacity number for each of its schools. The maximum capacity estimate is generally approximately 25% higher than the established permanent design capacity. Santa Margarita students attend Santa Margarita Elementary School, Atascadero Junior High School, and Atascadero High School. Enrollment to capacity ratios at these three campuses of the Atascadero Unified School District were reported at 1.25, 0.71 and 0.99 respectively for the 2002-3 school year. However, for the 2008-2009 school year, the elementary school had 329 students with a capacity of 358. Other Utilities The community of Santa Margarita is served by numerous other public utilities. Utility infrastructure is concentrated primarily within the urban area and includes storm sewer drains, water lines, electrical cables, and telephone cables. Southern California Gas Company operates facilities and gas lines across San Luis Obispo County: a Southern California Gas transmission main extends through the community.



Roads Public roads and their maintenance are under jurisdiction of the municipalities where the roads are located or the County in the unincorporated areas. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for maintaining the highway system in the State. In Santa Margarita, the majority of roads are the responsibility of the County, while State Highway 58 (“G” Street/Estrada Avenue/Pozo Road) is the responsibility of Caltrans. 5.10.2 Regulatory Setting The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) regulates privately owned electric, telecommunications, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit and passenger transportation companies in California. The CPUC is responsible for assuring California utility customers have safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates, protecting utility customers from fraud, and promoting the health of California's economy. In pursuing these goals, the Commission establishes service standards and safety rules, and authorizes utility rate changes. It monitors the safety of utility and transportation operations, and oversees markets to inhibit anti-competitive activity. In its efforts to protect consumers, it prosecutes unlawful utility marketing and billing activities, governs business relationships between utilities and their affiliates, and resolves complaints by customers against utilities. It implements energy efficiency programs, low-income rates and telecommunications services for disabled customers. It enforces CEQA for utility construction. The CPUC works with other State and Federal agencies in promoting water quality, environmental protection, and safety. San Luis Obispo County's Division of Environmental Health is responsible under the provisions of Section 4.019.9 of the California Health and Safety Code for the regulation of water systems which fall under the State's criteria of Public Water Systems. At the community level, various Community Services Districts (CSDs), water districts, and County Service Areas (CSA’s) in the County assume responsibility for the operation of community water systems. Responsibilities for sewage are likewise assumed by the several Sanitary Districts (SDs), CSD’s or CSA’s within the County. In Santa Margarita, water service is provided by County Service Area 23. There is no community-level sewer service; the community is served by individual on-site septic systems. 5.10.3 Significance Criteria The State CEQA Guidelines contains checklist questions for determination of environmental impacts. The questions contained in the checklist that relate to Public Services and Utilities were analyzed and a set of criteria has been



developed, against which the significance of the proposed project impacts to public services and utilities can be judged. According to the developed criteria, the proposed project would be considered to have a significant impact on public services and utilities if it results in:

A need for new or altered police protection, fire protection and/or health care services;

Student generation exceeding school capacity; Significant amounts of solid waste or the breach of any national, state, or

local standards or thresholds relating to solid waste disposal and generation (including recycling facilities and existing landfill capacity);

A need for new or altered potable water or sewer system/water treatment facilities (water pipelines or treatment plants, sewer lines, lift-stations, etc.);

A substantial increase in demand, especially during peak periods, upon existing sources of energy or potable water;

The development or extension of new sources of energy or potable water. 5.10.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.10.4.1 Proposed Project Water Supply Impacts Minor amounts of water would be used during construction for dust suppression, trench compaction, and flushing, testing and sanitizing new pipelines and related components. The source of water that would be used for project construction would be the existing CSA-23 system. The water supply impact would be short-term, occurring only during the construction phase. While the project's water use would represent an adverse impact to potable water supplies, this impact is not considered significant given the limited time and amount that would be consumed. Operation of the connection to the state water system would result in a net increase of water supply in Santa Margarita. Reliability of water supply in the community during periods of significant drought would be improved due to the project. Petroleum Fuels The construction and operation of the proposed project would require the expenditure of petroleum fuels. The energy used for the construction and operation of this project would be considered an irretrievable commitment of resources. The energy that would be consumed during construction would be comprised of onsite energy consumption, energy requirements to transport pipe and construction materials, and fuel used by commuting construction workers.



Construction would require the use of heavy equipment. Most of this equipment would be fueled with diesel. In addition to the equipment, construction workers commuting to the job site would consume gasoline in their vehicles. The total fuel consumption for the construction of the proposed project cannot be accurately estimated at this time. However, the proposed facilities are small, the construction phase is temporary, and diesel and gasoline are readily available fuels. Due to these factors the project's construction phase petroleum fuels impacts would be less than significant. During normal operation, petroleum fuels would also be utilized for the occasional testing or emergency use of standby diesel-powered generators and pumps and for the transportation of operating personnel and supplies. However, no additional personnel would be required to operate the CSA-23 system. Due to the short-term use of the emergency equipment and the small number of staff required, the fuel consumed would be less than significant from an energy use/consumption perspective. Electrical Power Water pressure in the state water system is more than sufficient to move the water into and through the CSA-23 system. Therefore, operation of the project would not result in increased demands on electrical power. Fire Services Construction activities associated with installation of the pipeline and turnout would result in a very minor increase in the probability for a wildland fire to occur because there would be diesel and gasoline fuelled machinery present and refueling operations occurring in high fire hazard areas. Operation of the system would not present an additional demand to the fire protection services. Due to the short duration of the construction period, it is not expected that additional fire protection services would be required, therefore impacts are less than significant. Police Services The proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department. Construction projects have the potential to increase the demand on police services when they require traffic detours and delays. However, construction activities associated with the project would not encroach into traffic; therefore the impact would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed facilities would not require additional law enforcement services beyond normal patrols; therefore the impact would be less than significant.



Schools The Atascadero Unified School District lists its capacity and enrollment conditions as moderate to severe (see Section 7, Growth Inducement). Any increased demands on school facilities would be considered a significant impact. Because the project would create no new permanent employees, no direct impacts to school facilities would occur as a consequence of operating the proposed project. The proposed project could contribute to increased demands on school facilities in the county assuming the assurance of sufficient water availability during periods of significant drought accommodates planned growth. Impacts to school facilities resulting from potential growth caused by the project are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. However, direct impacts to schools are less than significant. Roads The project would not impact public roads because the pipeline route is located well away from roads. No additional use of roads during operation of the project is anticipated, therefore, impacts to roads are not significant. 5.10.4.2 Water Conservation Under the water conservation alternative all project-related impacts, including beneficial impacts, would be eliminated because there would be no construction or operation of the connection to the state water system. 5.10.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential impacts to utilities and public services resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.10]. Overall, the project would have significant but mitigable impacts to utilities and public services as a result of construction and operational activities. Mitigation measures specified for the Nacimiento Project address temporary construction impacts as well as the long-term impacts from operating pumps and similar equipment. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Overall impacts to utilities and public services due to construction of the Santa Margarita connection would incrementally add to the level of impacts posed by the overall project. However, mitigation measures specified for the main line would also be applied to the Santa Margarita connection, and would reduce those impacts to less than significant.



Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento Water Project water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. Mitigation measures specified for the Nacimiento Water Project to address temporary construction impacts as well as the long-term impacts from operating pumps and similar equipment would reduce any effects from this alternative to a less than significant level. Option C This option would connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. The new water treatment plant would operate on electricity, which would represent an incremental increase in demand from the community, however, given the relatively small amount of water that would be treated in relation to overall electrical use in the community, the increase would not be significant. Impacts to school facilities resulting from potential growth caused by the Nacimiento Water Project are the same as those posed by the proposed project, and are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. However, direct impacts to schools are less than significant. 5.10.4.4 Groundwater All Options The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within the community boundaries. Consumption of energy for construction would be similar to the levels posed by the proposed project, and is considered less than significant. Operation of additional wells would increase electrical consumption due to the need to provide pumps at each new well. The groundwater alternatives would likely have impacts on existing roads as pavement is removed to install pipeline connections between the new wells and the existing distribution system. However, given that the number of new wells is not likely to be numerous, and that roads would be patched to meet required standards, this impact is not considered significant. Impacts to school facilities resulting from potential growth caused by the groundwater alternative are the same as those posed by the proposed project,




and are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. However, direct impacts to schools from the groundwater alternatives are less than significant. 5.10.4.5 No Project Under the no project alternative all project-related impacts, including beneficial impacts, would be eliminated because there will be no construction or operation of the connection to the state water system. 5.10.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to utilities and public services were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as the CSA23 Water Lines Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative utilities or public services impacts. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant public service concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically results in increased demands on fire, police, and roads. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in long-term increases in impacts to roads as a result of increases in vehicular activity levels associated with the more intensive agricultural use of the property. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Impacts from construction, together with higher traffic generation rates, will contribute to higher public service demands in the area. However, because the project’s utilities and public service impacts are limited to the construction period, the long-term cumulative impact is considered less than significant.

5.11 Transportation and Circulation

5.11 TRANSPORTATION and CIRCULATION The preliminary analysis of transportation and circulation impacts that could result from the proposed project indicates that construction of the 65 linear feet of pipeline and a turnout on the state water pipeline would not result in significant impacts in these areas. However, the following information is presented to allow a comparison of transportation and circulation impacts between project alternatives. The majority of the background information presented below is adapted from the Nacimiento Water Project EIR. 5.11.1 Environmental Setting Roadway and Intersection Classification Circulation conditions are often described in terms of levels of service (LOS). LOS is a means of describing the amount of traffic on a roadway versus the design capacity of the roadway. The design capacity of a roadway is defined as the maximum rate of vehicle travel that can reasonably be expected along a section of roadway. Capacity is dependent on a number of variables including road classification and number of lanes, weather, and driver characteristics. The LOS rating uses qualitative measures that characterize operational conditions within a traffic stream and their perception by motorists. These measures include freedom of movement, speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, types of vehicle, comfort, and convenience. Ideal conditions for a roadway would include good lane widths and roadside clearances, the absence of trucks or other heavy vehicles, and level terrain. LOS is generally a function of the ratio of traffic volume (V) to the capacity (C) of the roadway or intersection, which provides the V /C ratio. Trucks tend to impact LOS by occupying more roadway space and having poorer operating qualities than passenger cars. Because heavy vehicles accelerate more slowly than passenger cars, gaps form in traffic flow, which affects the efficiency of the roadway. Also, intersections present a number of variables that can influence LOS including curb parking, transit buses, turn lanes, signal spacing, pedestrians, and signal timing. The Transportation Research Board has developed the Highway Capacity Manual that details the procedures to be used in predicting LOS for a range of roadways and intersections. The LOS of a roadway is defined by scales ranging from A to F, with A indicating excellent traffic flow quality and F indicating stop-and-go traffic. Level E is normally associated with the maximum design capacity that a roadway can accommodate. The highest quality of traffic service occurs on roadways when motorists are able to drive their desired speed without strict enforcement and are not delayed by slow-moving vehicles more than 30% of the time. This condition is representative of LOS A. The classifications of LOS B and

5.11-1 CSA 23 Final FEIR 2011


C are characterized when average drivers are delayed up to 45-60% of the time, respectively, by slow moving vehicles. LOS D is characterized by 31-70% of the signal cycles having one or more vehicles that wait through at least one signal cycle. When an area drops to LOS E, the speed of traffic is restricted 71-100% of the time; and intersection signal cycles have one or more vehicles waiting through more than one signal cycle during peak traffic periods. An LOS of A, B, or C is generally considered satisfactory. Existing Roadway Conditions Santa Margarita area roadways that could be impacted by construction of the proposed project or one of the alternatives include residential streets within the Urban Reserve Line, El Camino Real between Santa Margarita and south Atascadero, and State Highway 58 (“G” Street/Estrada Avenue/Pozo Road) (See Figure 5.11-1, Local Transportation Network). All of these roadways and their associated intersections operate at Level of Service “A”, although some delays are experienced by motorists due to the at-grade railroad crossings in the community. While a percentage of vehicles on El Camino Real and Highway 58 are trucks, either associated with the quarry operation near Garden Farms or with transportation of goods and services to outlying areas along Highway 58, Caltrans does not maintain a breakdown of truck percentages on Highway 58, as the volumes of both trucks and cars is well below levels where special action would be needed. Future Conditions Future conditions of the roadways are important in understanding the potential impacts of proposed projects. Data generated by Caltrans and by San Luis Obispo County was used to estimate traffic growth rates in the Nacimiento project area, which includes Santa Margarita. According to the analysis contained in the Nacimiento EIR, the only roadway in the Santa Margarita area expected to experience an LOS rating of D or below is Highway 101 at the City of San Luis Obispo northern limits. Rail Facilities A main line and active sidings for the Union Pacific Railroad run parallel to State Highway 58 (the G Street portion) through Santa Margarita, and parallel to El Camino Real north of the community. The railway carries both passenger and freight traffic. As of 2002 there were three Amtrak trains per day in each direction and seven regularly scheduled freight trains per day. In addition, there may be other scheduled freight trains on the line in peak demand periods. There is no passenger railroad station in Santa Margarita.



5.11.2 Regulatory Setting Transportation system requirements are subject to the policies and plans of the County of San Luis Obispo and Caltrans. San Luis Obispo County outlines policies and standards in the Circulation Element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan. The standards provide guidance in defining whether proposed projects are consistent with established roadway capacity levels and intersection LOS. Project consistency with roadway standards is based on the number of daily trips contributed by the project and the potential for exceeding acceptable design capacities and the estimated future volumes for roadways in the project area. Maximum load limits for trucks and safety requirements for oversized vehicles are generally regulated by Caltrans for operation on highways, and by the County for its roads. 5.11.3 Significance Criteria Significance criteria are established to determine the level of a project's impact. For projects whose impacts exceed the significance criteria, mitigation measures must be developed. If an impact cannot be mitigated to a level below the significance threshold, the impact is designated significant (Class I). If an impact is reduced below the significance threshold, the impact is designated not significant with mitigation (Class ll). Transportation/circulation impacts would be considered significant if one or more of the following conditions were to occur as a result of construction or operation activities:

The addition of the proposed project traffic to an intersection increases the peak hour V /C ratio by the value provided in Exhibit 5.11-1 or adds at least 5, 10, or 15 peak hour trips to a LOS F, E or D, respectively.

Exhibit 5.11-1

Transportation Significance Criteria

Peak Hour LOS (including Project) Increase in V/C Additional Trips A 0.20 -

B 0.15 -

C 0.10 -

D - 15

E - 10

F - 5



Proposed project activities would reduce the number of travel lanes during peak traffic periods for roadways with peak hour LOS D or worse, resulting in a disruption of traffic flow and/or traffic congestion.

A major roadway (arterial or collector classification) would be closed to

through traffic as a result of the proposed project's activities with no suitable alternative route available.

Proposed project activities would restrict access to or from private

property or adjacent land uses with no suitable alternative access.

Proposed project activities would restrict the movements of emergency vehicles (police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, and paramedic units) with no reasonable alternative access.

Proposed project activities would impede pedestrian movements or

bikeways with no suitable alternative pedestrian/bicycle routes.

An increase in roadway wear in the proposed project vicinity would occur as a result of heavy truck or construction equipment movements or trenching operations, resulting in noticeable deterioration of pavement or roadway surfaces.

Proposed project activities would change access to major roads, which

would create unsafe conditions or create a necessity for a new driveway, a new traffic signal, or a change to an existing traffic signal.

Proposed project activities would add traffic to a roadway that has design

features or receives use that would be incompatible with substantial increases in traffic. This could be indicated by exceeding the Circulation Element Capacity designation for the roadway.

Proposed project activities would result in safety problems for vehicular

traffic, pedestrians, or bicyclists. 5.11.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.11.4.1 Proposed Project As noted above, the transportation and circulation impacts that could result from the proposed project indicates that construction of the 65 linear feet of pipeline and turnout on the state water pipeline would not result in significant impacts in these areas. The proposed project could contribute to increased demands on transportation and circulation systems in the community assuming the more secure water



supply accommodates planned growth. Impacts resulting from potential growth caused by the project are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. 5.11.4.2 Water Conservation Under the water conservation alternative all project-related impacts to transportation and circulation systems would be eliminated because there will be no construction or operation of the connection to the state water system. 5.11.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project The transportation and circulation impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project were fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.11]. Impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the Santa Margarita area are similar to those identified for the State Water Project since both projects consist of pipelines through the community, although the Nacimiento Water Project had greater impacts to roadways because the alignment was specifically chosen to follow existing roads, in part to avoid long-term impacts to natural resources. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR, although information specific to El Camino Real between south Atascadero and Santa Margarita is contained in the document. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line along El Camino Real, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. According to the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, the impacts to transportation and circulation from the overall project are considered significant but mitigable to a level of less than significant. Along the route of the Santa Margarita pipeline, motorists could expect intermittent delays during construction due to lane closures, which, although similar in both extent and duration as those generated by installation of the main line, would be more manageable because the smaller pipe requires less excavation, soil handling and easier management of the pipe laying process. Option B Pipeline connections between the community and producing wells on the Santa Margarita Ranch, and connections between the Nacimiento Water Project and the Ranch’s irrigation facilities, would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the Nacimiento Water Project. With the application of the routine measures listed in the Nacimiento Water Project EIR,



the transportation and circulation impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Option C Pipeline connections between the Nacimiento Water Project, the new treatment plant, and the community water distribution system would require the application of the same set of mitigation measures identified for the Nacimiento Water Project. With the application of the listed measures, the transportation and circulation impacts associated with connecting CSA-23 to the Nacimiento Water Project could be mitigated to a less than significant level. Impacts to transportation and circulation resulting from potential growth caused by the Nacimiento Water Project are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement, of the Nacimiento Water Project EIR. 5.11.4.4 Groundwater All Options The groundwater alternatives would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries. Transportation and circulation impacts would be similar to the levels posed by the proposed project, and are considered less than significant. Additional wells would need to be connected to the existing water system through new piping, which could involve excavation in streets. However, given that the number of new wells is not likely to be numerous, impacts to traffic are temporary, and that roads would be patched to meet required standards, this impact is not considered significant. Impacts to transportation and circulation resulting from potential growth caused by the groundwater pumping alternative are the same as those posed by the proposed project, and are discussed in Section 7, Growth Inducement. 5.11.4.5 No Project Under the no project alternative all project-related impacts would be eliminated because there will be no construction or operation of the connection to the state water system. 5.11.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to transportation and circulation were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as




the CSA 23 Waterline Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative transportation and circulation impacts. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant transportation and circulation concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically results in increased demands on transportation and circulation systems. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in long-term increases in impacts to roads as a result of increases in vehicular activity levels associated with the more intensive agricultural use of the property. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Impacts from construction, together with higher traffic generation rates, will contribute to higher transportation and circulation demands in the area. However, because the project’s transportation and circulation impacts are both minimal and limited to the construction period, the long-term cumulative impact is not considered cumulatively considerable, and is therefore less than significant.

Pozo Rd

El Ca

mino

Rea

l

Carmel Rd

Walnut

Ave

Park Hill Rd

San Antonio Rd

Santa Clara Rd

Santa Margarita Rd

£¤101

|ÿ229

|ÿ58

¯0 0.5 10.25

Miles


Roads - County Maintained

State Hwy

U.S. Hwy


FIGURE 5.11-1Local Transportation Network Map

5.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

5.12 AESTHETICS and VISUAL RESOURCES The preliminary analysis of aesthetics and visual resources that could result from the proposed project indicates that construction of the 65 linear feet of pipeline and a turnout on the state water pipeline would not result in significant impacts in these areas. However, the following information is presented to allow a comparison of aesthetics and visual resources impacts between project alternatives. The majority of the background information presented below is adapted from the Nacimiento Water Project EIR. 5.12.1 Environmental Setting A visual resource is identified as a function of the visual character of the resource itself (Visual Quality or Character), the level of public interest and concern over changes in the quality of the resource (Visual Sensitivity) and the frequency with which the resource is viewed by the public. The assessment of visual sensitivity establishes the most important viewing positions early in the analytical process. The other attribute, visual character, is assessed only in relation to the important, potentially affected views. Visual impacts subsequently are evaluated in the context of the character of these views. Visual Sensitivity To assess visual sensitivity, indicators of public concern have been identified for the proposed project and sensitivity rated accordingly. The indicators are listed in Table 5.12-1 and reflect the concepts and methods of several federal agencies which treat sensitivity as a function of viewer activity, awareness, values, and goals (U .S. Forest Service 1977; U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service [SCS] 1978; BLM 1986; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 1980). Certain activities tend to heighten viewer awareness of scenic resources, while others tend to be distracting. People who are camping, picnicking, or driving for pleasure are more apt to notice the surrounding scenery than those commuting in heavy traffic or working at a construction site. Viewer awareness may also be heightened where areas are formally classified or otherwise designated as being of special interest, such as national historic monuments, national and state parks and forests, scenic routes and overlooks, visitor information centers, and wildlife refuges. High visual sensitivity is assumed to exist where landscapes, particular views, or the visual characteristics of certain features are protected through policies, goals, objectives, and design controls in public planning documents. Visual significance is not always a function of aesthetic appeal. The public may confer visual significance on landscape components and areas that would otherwise appear unexceptional. For example, unexceptional landscapes along tertiary roads may be particularly important to local residents as undesignated open spaces. Other



areas may have regional or national cultural significance, but not be especially scenic. Nonetheless, their visual character may be considered important to their cultural value. Three levels of visual sensitivity are defined below.

Exhibit 5.12-1 Indicators of Visual Sensitivity

HIGH SENSITIVITY

Views of and from areas the aesthetic values of which are protected in laws, public regulations and policies, and public planning documents.

Views of and from designated areas of aesthetic, recreational, cultural, or scientific interest, including national, state, county, and community parks, reserves, memorials, scenic roads, trails, interpretive sites of scientific value, scenic overlooks, recreation areas, and historic structures, sites, and districts.

Views of and from areas or sites of cultural/religious importance to Native Americans.

Views from national or state-designated scenic highways or roads, or designated scenic highways or roads of regional importance.

Views from resort areas. Views from urban residential subdivisions Views from segments of travel routes, such as roads, rail lines, pedestrian and

equestrian trails, and bicycle paths near designated areas of aesthetic, recreational, cultural, or scientific interest leading directly to them. Views seen while approaching an area of interest may be closely related to the appreciation of the aesthetic, cultural, scientific, or recreational significance of that destination.

MODERATE SENSITIVITY Views from segments of travel routes near highly sensitive use areas of interest,

serving as a secondary access route to those areas. Views from rural residential areas and segments of roads near them which serve as

their primary access route. Views of and from undesignated but protected or popularly used or appreciated

areas of aesthetic, recreational, cultural, or scientific significance at the local, county, or state level.

Views from highways or roads locally designated as scenic routes and of importance only to the local population, or informally designated as such in literature, road maps and road atlases.

Views from travel routes, such as roads, trails, bicycle paths, and equestrian trails leading directly to protected or popularly used undesignated areas important for their aesthetic, recreational, cultural, or scientific interest.

Views of and from religious facilities and cemeteries. LOW SENSITIVITY

Views from travel routes serving as secondary access to moderately sensitive areas.

Views from farmsteads, or groupings of fewer than four residences.

Views from industrial research/development, commercial, and agricultural use areas.

High Sensitivity High sensitivity suggests that at least some part of the public is likely to react strongly to a threat to visual quality. Concern is expected to be great because the affected views are rare, unique, or in other ways are special to the region or



locale. A highly concerned public is assumed to be more aware of any given level of adverse change and less tolerant than a public that has little concern. A small modification of the existing landscape may be visually distracting to a highly sensitive public and represent a substantial reduction in visual quality. Moderate Sensitivity Moderate sensitivity suggests that the public would probably voice some concern over substantial visual impacts. Often the affected views are secondary in importance or are similar to others commonly available to the public. Noticeably adverse changes would probably be tolerated if the essential character of the views remains dominant. Low Sensitivity Low sensitivity is considered to prevail where the public is expected to have little or no concern about changes in the landscape. This may be because the affected views are not "public" (not accessible to the public) or because there are no indications that the affected views are valued by the public. For instance, little public concern for aesthetics is assumed to pertain to views from industrial, commercial and purely agricultural areas. There are exceptions: some agricultural areas are prized for their open space value and views of such are highly sensitive. Visual sensitivity is low for views from all sites, areas, travel routes, and sections of travel routes not identified as moderate or high in sensitivity. Visual Character The visual character of the affected landscape typically is described in terms of its land forms, vegetation, water features, and the "built" features of the environment. There are three objectives in assessing visual character. One is to identify the types of features considered to be inherent to the area. Such features are expressive of the prevailing land uses, for instance, in an urban or rural area; or they would express the ecological processes in a natural appearing landscape. The more defined the landscape is (i.e., totally natural appearing, purely residential, consistently rural), the more opportunity there is for introduced features not part of the prevailing character to noticeably contrast with those defining the landscape. The second objective in assessing visual character is to identify patterns or distribution of features that are characteristic of the affected setting. For instance, ecotones might define the distribution of vegetation in a natural setting. Architectural styles or density of housing might be defining attributes of a residential area.



The third objective is to describe the existing quality of the visual resources, which varies inversely with how noticeable incongruous features may be within public views. The current visual quality of the physical environment is described as its existing visual condition, which is defined in terms of four Visual Modification Classes as noted in Exhibit 5.12-2.

Exhibit 5.12-2 Visual Modification Class Definitions

VMC Definition

1 Not noticeable Changes in the landscape are within the field of view but generally would be overlooked by all but the most concerned and interested viewers; they generally would not be noticed unless pointed out (inconspicuous because of such factors as distance, screening, low contrast with context, or other features in view, including the adverse impacts of past activities).

2 Noticeable, visually subordinate Changes in the landscape would not be overlooked (noticeable to most without being pointed out); they may attract some attention but do not compete for it with other features in the field of view, including the adverse impacts of past activities. Such changes often are perceived as being in the background.

3 Distracting, visually co-dominant Changes in the landscape compete for attention with other features in view, including the adverse impacts of past activities (attention is drawn to the change about as frequently as to other features in the landscape).

4 Visually dominant, demands attention Changes in the landscape are the focus of attention and tend to become the subject of the view; such changes often cause a lasting impression of the affected landscape.

San Luis Obispo County has a unique and diverse scenic beauty that is highly valued by visitors and the residents. The setting in the project area is scenic and natural up to the urban limits of the community, where the visual character is a combination of natural and built environments. The landscape ranges in character from gently sloping Savannah woodlands and meadows to rugged chaparral covered terrain. As is typically found in the central coast rural area, natural woodland occurs at higher elevations with native shrubs and chaparral or grassland toward the base. The area’s visual quality is ranked medium to high. Because the area is not environmentally pristine, the typical traveler would expect to see man-made changes in the scenery. However, people who live in the area are generally interested in maintaining the rural scenery and surrounding agricultural areas, and support minimizing the visual impacts of future development. 5.12.2 Regulatory Setting Outside of designated historical sites, state and federal parks, and state scenic highways, visual impacts are regulated by local ordinances and policies. In San Luis Obispo County, visual attributes and locations are designated as scenic and



subject to various standards and policies through a number General Plan documents, such as the Open Space Element and various Area Plans. However, areas within and adjacent to the community of Santa Margarita that could be affected the project or alternatives do not carry specific scenic designations. 5.12.3 Significance Criteria Appendix G (I) of the State CEQA identifies four areas of concern regarding a project's potential impact on aesthetics. A project would normally have a significant aesthetic impact if it would:

Have a substantial adverse affect 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 5.12.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.12.4.1 Proposed Project The construction phase of the project would have negative visual impacts due to the presence of construction machinery at the construction sites and clearing and removal of vegetation. However, these impacts are temporary, and regrading of disturbed areas to natural contours and revegetating cleared areas to the pre-project or better conditions are part of the proposed project, therefore long-term visual impacts are not expected to be significant. The permanent aboveground features of the proposed project are more likely to have a visual impact. Although a new 6” steel tee and valve will be enclosed in a new subsurface concrete vault, the new waterline will connect to flow metering and control equipment housed in a secure enclosure approximately 15’ wide by 20’ long. The enclosure may be constructed as a cast-in-place concrete vault located below ground adjacent to the existing blow off vault, or alternatively as an above-ground wood-framed structure adjacent to (and of similar construction to) the existing Well #3 equipment buildings. The selection of the enclosure alternative will be coordinated with the Central Coast Water Authority during the final design of the connection. Depending on the enclosure alternative selected, the existing 6’ chain link fencing at the Well #3 site will be extended to create an approximately 50’ by 50’ enclosure with additional swing gates to provide security to the facilities.



However, these would be limited to the area where existing similar buildings and structure associated with the turnout and water well. In addition, these structures are located within the community in an area with similar structures of various architectural designs. Given the small nature of the structures and their proximity to the developed community, the long-term visual impacts are not expected to be significant. 5.12.4.2 Water Conservation No visual impacts would occur as a result of the water conservation alternative. 5.12.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential aesthetics and visual resources impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.12]. Impacts and mitigation measures applicable to the Santa Margarita area are similar to those identified for the State Water Project since both projects consist of pipelines through the community, although the Nacimiento Water Project initially had lesser visual impacts because the alignment follows existing roads and avoids scenic rural areas. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR, although information specific to El Camino Real between south Atascadero and Santa Margarita is contained in the document. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line along El Camino Real, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. Since the CSA 23 connection would not be laid in the same trench with the main line due to future maintenance considerations, it would essentially expand the impacts to the roadway, that is, the work zone would be widened by as much as 25 feet. According to the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, the construction phase of the project would have negative visual impacts due to the presence of construction machinery at the construction sites and staging areas, clearing and removal of vegetation, and disturbance to road pavement. However, these impacts are temporary, and regrading of disturbed areas to natural contours, revegetating of the cleared areas, and restoration of disturbed road pavement to the pre-project or better conditions are part of the proposed project, therefore long-term visual impacts are not expected to be significant. During construction of the pipeline, construction crews would move along the pipeline route at 200-500 feet per day, therefore not impacting any particular area for more than several days.



Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento Water Project water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. Similar to option A, the construction phase of the project would have negative visual impacts due to the presence of construction machinery at the construction sites and staging areas, clearing and removal of vegetation, and disturbance to road pavement. However, these impacts are temporary, and regrading of disturbed areas to natural contours, revegetating of the cleared areas, and restoration of disturbed road pavement to the pre-project or better conditions are part of the proposed project, therefore long-term visual impacts are not expected to be significant. Option C This option would connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. Short term visual impacts would be similar to options A and B, relating to the construction of the pipeline. Long term impacts would result from the construction and operation of the new water treatment plant. Although such facilities have the potential to result in significant visual impacts due to their tendency to rely on industrial and institutional structural elements such as chain link fencing, visible tanks and pipes, outdoor storage yards and security lighting, each of these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the use of context sensitive architectural design, shielded lighting, and good housekeeping procedures. 5.12.4.4 Groundwater All Options The groundwater alternatives would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries. As with the proposed project, the construction phase of the project would have negative visual impacts due to the presence of construction machinery at the construction sites and clearing and removal of vegetation. However, these impacts are temporary, and regrading of disturbed areas to natural contours and revegetating cleared areas to the pre-project or better conditions would be accomplished as part of the project, therefore long-term visual impacts are not expected to be significant. Permanent facilities at new well sites could consist of a small pump-house and new overhead electrical connections (underground electrical connections are




preferred). However, such facilities would be located within or near to the developed community where visual expectations are lower, and would be of small size and limited numbers. Therefore, visual impacts are not expected to be significant. 5.12.4.5 No Project No visual impacts would occur as a result of the no-project alternative. 5.12.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to aesthetics and visual resources were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those that involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact of the proposed project is minimal. For projects such as the CSA 23 Waterlines Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative aesthetics and visual resources impacts. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, which in turn raise potentially significant aesthetics and visual resource concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, typically results in changes in the visual character of the area by introducing man-made elements into a predominately non-urban area. On-going conversion of grazing lands to viticulture also has the potential to result in long-term changes in visual character, although most viewers would not perceive a change in agricultural activities as a negative impact. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. Impacts from construction, together with the introduction of development into open areas may alter the visual character of the area, depending on the visibility of new development. However, because the project’s aesthetics and visual resource impacts are both minimal and limited to the construction period, the long-term cumulative impact is considered less than significant.

5.13 Agricultural Resources

5.13 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

Neither the proposed project, nor any of the alternatives, would have direct substantial impacts on agricultural land in the project area. Except for a potential groundwater well and associated pipeline, no facilities are proposed to be built on agricultural land. (For the Nacimiento project, this refers only to the Santa Margarita pipeline, and for the State Water project, does not refer to past impacts from installation of the coastal branch pipeline). However, one or more of the alternatives may pose secondary impacts to agriculture by consuming water resources, which are a necessary component of agricultural intensification. The following information is presented to allow a comparison of impacts between project alternatives. The majority of the background information presented below is adapted from: Draft Environmental Constraints Analysis for Santa Margarita Ranch,


Final EIR, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Cluster Subdivision Project

and Future Development Program, County of San Luis Obispo, June 2008 5.13.1 Environmental Setting The potential secondary impacts of the proposed project to agricultural resources are generally limited to the region surrounding the community of Santa Margarita, which coincides with the boundaries of the Santa Margarita Ranch. Therefore, it is reasonable to limit the discussion of agricultural impacts to those activities that have, are, or are proposed to occur within the area encompassed by the Ranch (See Figure 2-2). The agricultural capability of the Santa Margarita Ranch (Ranch) is based upon many factors. These factors include land and soil characteristics, climate, water availability, adjacent land use activities and economic conditions. Many of these factors fluctuate over time, resulting in a constantly changing interplay between environmental and economic factors which affect the performance of the Ranch's agricultural production. The objective of this analysis is to disclose the nature of the water resources available for agricultural use on the Ranch, and to assess the roles water plays in supporting or limiting agricultural activities on the Ranch. Santa Margarita Ranch is primarily contained within the Salinas River Planning Area. This 135 square mile area covers a distinctive geographic region of interconnecting warmer and drier interior valleys which range from the Cuesta Pass to the North County line, along the U.S. Highway 101 corridor. The Ranch shares similarities in soil and climate characteristics with much of the Salinas River Planning Area. It also shares a common agricultural history with the prevailing ranch and animal industries of this interior county area. Despite these



similarities of location and agricultural history, the Ranch has its differences as well. The Ranch's location near the Cuesta Pass of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range places it in proximity to local weather-ameliorating benefits of the cooler, more humid maritime air which flows toward the interior through the Pass. The Ranch also benefits from a higher precipitation regime and mildly suppressed evapotranspiration gradients because of its location. Coupled with the Ranch's large size and extensive areas of gently sloping terrain, these conditions contribute to more favorable pasture and range conditions than commonly exist further inland. A second difference between the Ranch and the Planning Area as a whole is the Ranch's inaccessibility to abundant, economically retrievable ground water resources. While much of the Salinas River Planning Area has access to the comparatively large Paso Robles groundwater basin and alluvial deposits of the Salinas River, the Ranch has access only to the smaller alluvial deposits of the Yerba Buena and Trout Creek tributaries to the Salinas River, and to limited water supplies contained within local bedrock formations. Range land and dry land agricultural activity, associated primarily with animal industries, has historically represented the largest share of agricultural acreage both in the County and in the Salinas River Planning Area. However, during the last two decades in San Luis Obispo County, the general increases in state and county populations leading to increased demands for agricultural products, the expanding pressures upon agriculture land to convert to rural residential and other non-farm uses, and externalities such as the prolonged drought of the 1980s, have all been part of the dynamic that has influenced agricultural resource owners and managers to intensify operations wherever possible. These trends are illustrated in the production value and acreage statistics of competing agricultural sectors which are contained within the San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Department's Annual Reports. In the early 1970s, animal industries still ranked first in value among competing agricultural sectors, including the combined value of all vegetables grown in the county. This circumstance prevailed until 1973, and once again in 1979. Throughout the years of the last two decades, however, diversification and intensification have been the guiding lights for agriculturists. More and more agricultural resources have been placed into intensified agricultural pursuits such as vegetables, fruits and nuts, and nursery / seed specialty crops, and out of less intense, widespread agricultural practices such as dry farming. Consequently, less intensive agricultural activities, represented by animal industries and field crops, showed growth in overall values, with some fluctuations from 1970 until 1983, but these activities have posted declines in overall sector value since then.



These observed statistical trends are illustrative of the investment decisions made by agricultural resource owners and managers to devote scarce agricultural production resources increasingly in more intensified activities. This intensification is limited in its overall extent to a number of advantaged locations throughout the County, where areas with prime soils and favorable climates can be irrigated. The development of groundwater resources throughout the County has facilitated this intensification. Historically, the agricultural resources of the Santa Margarita Ranch have primarily been utilized for cattle production. Previous attempts to diversify, or intensify agriculture activities through the raising of various crops have been relatively short lived. Unfavorable farm commodity prices and the effects of a prolonged drought have combined to limit diversified agriculture on the Ranch. However, recent conversion of substantial acreage of the ranch to vineyards has occurred, mirroring trends in the rest of the Salinas River Planning Area. A key component of this intensification has been the development of groundwater resources. Precipitation, runoff, on-site alluvial aquifers, deeper bedrock aquifers, and importation of water from nearby areas offer the only possible sources of water for irrigated agricultural intensification on the Ranch. With regard to imported water, the comparatively large Paso Robles groundwater basin, which is replenished by uncontrolled runoff from the Salinas River and its tributaries, is the closest area from which water might be imported. However, intra-basin transfer of groundwater to the Ranch from Salinas River aquifers is unlikely in the face of the existing demands on the basin. Consequently, the potential for importation of water from nearby areas must be considered unrealistic for the foreseeable future, and thus the Ranch must rely on local resources for irrigation. The Ranch's orographically enhanced precipitation levels have supported high quality grazing conditions and as much as 3,000 acres of dry farming. However, both agricultural activities have suffered declines in productivity during prolonged periods of drought, leading to the conclusion that precipitation alone cannot be counted upon to support agricultural intensification on the Ranch in the long term. The surface runoff crossing the Ranch in Santa Margarita, Yerba Buena, and Trout Creeks, flows atop and replenishes the shallow alluvial aquifer which supplies the domestic water needs of the Garden Farms area and the town of Santa Margarita. This shallow aquifer has been developed to near capacity already, and does not appear to offer reserves which could reliably provide irrigation water for the Ranch. Groundwater contained in deep bedrock formations underlying the Ranch offers the best opportunity for water supplies capable of supporting agricultural intensification. Of the mapped bedrock formations underlying the Ranch, the Santa Margarita Formation alone holds the greatest potential as a bedrock groundwater source. While the potentials of the Santa Margarita Formation are



not fully tested and proven, the water budget analysis [conducted in 1994] suggests a perennial yield from the bedrock of 1,160 acre-feet per year. 5.13.2 Regulatory Setting Two regulatory considerations are important to the project: the Agriculture Element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan and San Luis Obispo County's "Right-to-Farm Ordinance." San Luis Obispo County Agriculture Element Through the goals, policies, implementation programs and measures provided within the Agriculture Element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan, the county's intent is:

"To promote and protect the agricultural industry of the County, to provide for a continuing sound and healthy agriculture in the county, and to encourage a productive and profitable agricultural industry."

San Luis Obispo County "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance The San Luis Obispo County "Right-to-Farm" Ordinance states that the use of real property for agricultural operations is a high priority and favored use. Ordinance No. 2561 (August, 1992), added Chapter 5.16 to Title 5 of the San Luis Obispo County Code relating to Agricultural Lands, Operations, and The Right To Farm. Paragraph "b" of Section 5.16.020 (Findings and Policy) states:

"Where non-agricultural land uses occur near agricultural areas, agricultural operations frequently become the subjects of nuisance complaints due to lack of information about such operations. As a result, agricultural operators may be forced to cease or curtail their operations. Such actions discourage investments in farm improvements to the detriment of agricultural uses and the viability of the county's agricultural industry as a whole. It is the purpose and intent of this ordinance to reduce the loss to the County of its agricultural resources by clarifying the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be considered a nuisance. "

An additional purpose of this ordinance (paragraph "c") is to promote a good neighbor policy by advising purchasers of residential property, and owners of other property in the County, of the inherent potential problems associated with the purchase of such property. Such concerns may include, but are not limited to, the noises, odors, dust, chemicals, smoke, and hours of operation that may accompany agricultural operations. It is intended that, through mandatory disclosures, purchasers and users will better understand the impact of living near agricultural operations and be prepared to accept attendant conditions as the natural result of living in or near rural areas.



Pre-existing agricultural uses are not a nuisance (Section 5.16.030). California Civil Code Section 3479 defines a "nuisance" as anything which is injurious to health, is indecent or offensive to the senses, or is an obstruction to the use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. San Luis Obispo County has determined that the use of real property for agricultural operations is a high priority and favored use to the County, and those inconveniences or discomforts arising from legally established agricultural activities or operations, as defined in the San Luis Obispo County Code, or State law, shall not be or become a nuisance. 5.13.3 Significance Criteria According to the Appendix G (II) of the CEQA guidelines, a project will normally have a significant effect on agricultural resources if it will:

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

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act

contract

Involve other changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use

5.13.4 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.13.4.1 Proposed Project This proposed project is primarily an underground construction project with short-term agricultural impacts. Only a small portion (less than ¼ acre) of the project is located on agricultural land. Construction activities will not substantially conflict with the current agricultural land (grazing). Further, construction activities on agricultural land would be located within an existing water pipeline easement, which limits the agricultural use to less intensive activities. Therefore, the temporary construction impacts to agricultural resources are not significant. Long-term operation of the project does not pose potentially significant agricultural impacts because:

The operation of the pipeline and turnout would not interfere with the existing grazing use of the land



Additional growth that could be accommodated by the imported water would be confined to the existing urban area

The water to be supplied to the community is not being diverted from

some other agricultural use 5.13.4.2 Water Conservation Under this alternative, no new water infrastructure would be developed, but the stated goals and objectives of the project would be at least partially met through water conservation. However, water conservation alone typically could not fully meet the community’s water needs along with those of adjacent agricultural resources that are also dependent on local groundwater sources. Consequently, it is expected that any water diverted to the community during drought periods would necessarily result in a reduction of supplies available for agricultural uses. Continued reliance on groundwater during drought periods could result in impacts to adjacent agricultural lands by reducing the amount of water available for agricultural uses. This in turn could increase the pressure to convert agricultural lands to other uses. The degree to which drought period groundwater pumping could impact agricultural resources is difficult to predict, however, historical evidence indicates that pumping of larger agricultural wells located in the shallow aquifer has affected urban wells in both Santa Margarita and Garden Farms. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that pumping of urban wells would likely affect area agricultural wells. Given that water is critical to production agriculture, especially in times of drought, reliance on a conservation program alone would result in significant unavoidable impacts to agricultural resources. 5.13.4.3 Nacimiento Water Project Potential agricultural impacts resulting from the Nacimiento Water Project are fully addressed in the Final EIR, Nacimiento Water Project, County of San Luis Obispo, December 2003 [Section 5.13]. Option A The portion of the Nacimiento Water Project directly attributable to Santa Margarita/CSA 23 was not evaluated separately in the EIR. Connecting the community of Santa Margarita to the Nacimiento Water Project would involve the construction of an additional 3-mile segment of pipe, laid parallel to the main line, connecting CSA 23 to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company distribution system. This 3-mile segment would be located within the right-of-way of El Camino Real, outside of active agricultural land. However, construction of the pipeline could result in temporary impacts to agricultural uses. However, as



noted in the Nacimiento Water Project EIR, application of specific mitigation measures would reduce the project’s temporary agricultural impacts to less than significant. Option B This option would establish an exchange program with the Santa Margarita Ranch using Nacimiento Water Project supplies. During water supply emergencies, the Ranch would provide potable groundwater to CSA 23 through the Ranch’s existing wells. During normal years, the Ranch would take Nacimiento Water Project water and irrigate vineyards and other crops via a connection at Santa Margarita, while conserving groundwater in the existing water bearing strata under the Ranch. Minor disruptions of agricultural operations would occur during construction of pipelines associated with this alternative; however, these impacts would be temporary in nature and therefore not significant. Potential long-term impacts revolve around the need for the Ranch, an agricultural operation, to ensure that adequate groundwater supplies are maintained in the event the Ranch’s wells are needed to supply a portion of the community’s needs during a drought period. In as much as the water supply would be considered critical during a drought period, it is logical to assume that the underground water storage component of this alternative would need to be conservative, meaning that some amount of groundwater above and beyond the specified 85 acre feet would need to be left in storage to ensure the drought supply. This water would necessarily not be available for agricultural use. While the overall volume would not be substantial in relation to the Ranch’s overall irrigation potential, this impact is considered significant because of the perspective of the County’s adopted polices contained in the Agriculture and Conservation and Open Space elements of the General Plan (see section 5.9 Land Use). Option C This option would connect the Nacimiento Water Project directly to the community’s water system via a new water treatment plant that would be constructed somewhere within the boundaries of the town. This alternative would have no effect on agricultural resources. Long-term operation of the Nacimiento Water Project (Santa Margarita Pipeline portion) does not pose potentially significant agricultural impacts because:

The operation of the pipeline would not interfere with the existing agricultural uses of adjacent land

Additional growth that could be accommodated by the imported water

would be confined to the existing urban area



The water to be supplied to the community is not being diverted from some other agricultural use

5.13.4.4 Groundwater The groundwater alternative would involve the installation of one or more additional wells within or near the community boundaries. It is unlikely that the construction impacts of the drilling of additional wells and connecting them to the distribution system would result in significant impacts to agricultural resources on lands adjacent to the community. Option A This option would place a new deep well near well #3. Additional groundwater pumping from the deeper “bedrock” aquifer would not be expected to result in agricultural impacts as there is no direct or measurable connection between the deeper bedrock aquifer and agricultural water resources. Option B This option involves placing a new deep well in the same deep bedrock formation as the Santa Margarita Elementary School Well. As with option A, additional groundwater pumping from the deeper “bedrock” would not be expected to result in agricultural impacts as there is no direct or measurable connection between the deeper bedrock aquifer and agricultural water resources. Option C This option involves the development of a new well tapping the creek alluvium under Santa Margarita Creek, generally to the west of the community. Continued reliance on groundwater during a drought period could result in impacts to adjacent agricultural lands by reducing the amount of water available for agricultural uses. This in turn could increase the pressure to convert agricultural lands to other uses. The degree to which continued drought period groundwater pumping could impact agricultural resources is difficult to predict, however, historical evidence indicates that pumping of larger agricultural wells located in the shallow aquifer has affected urban wells in both Santa Margarita and Garden Farms. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that pumping of urban wells would likely affect area agricultural wells. If the development of additional groundwater resources were to reduce water supplies available to the adjacent agricultural land, the project could be considered in conflict with polices contained in the Agriculture and Open Space Element of the County’s General Plan, as a lack of water would reduce the agricultural capability of the land (See section 5.9 Land Use). To the extent that




reducing available groundwater supplies would increase the pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non-agricultural uses, the project would produce “changes in the existing environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use”. Given that groundwater resources on the Ranch are known to be constrained, the impacts of groundwater option C would be considered secondary, but significant. 5.13.4.5 No Project No adverse agricultural impacts would be generated by the no-project alternative. 5.13.5 Cumulative Impacts Cumulative effects of the proposed project together with those of the cumulative projects listed in section 4.0 relating to agricultural resources were also evaluated. With respect to the smaller projects on the cumulative list, that is, those which involve a specific finite construction period for a clearly defined project, the incremental impact, if any, of the proposed project is minimal. For projects that temporarily disrupt agricultural activities, such as the CSA 23 Water Lines Upgrade, the short duration and limited scope of the projects would not, in combination with the proposed project, present significant cumulative impact to agricultural resources. Those projects occurring on the Santa Margarita Ranch, including past, on-going, and potential future actions, generally involve substantial land use changes, either to non-agricultural uses or to more intensive agricultural crops. The change to non-agricultural land uses raises potentially significant concerns. Residential development, as is occurring on the Garden Farms expansion parcels, together with the proposed 112 new residential parcels, will result in long-term impacts to agricultural uses. Future Ranch development may involve a variety of different kinds of land use changes, including additional residential uses, the installation of a golf course and associated resort development. To the extent that these new uses consume water resources, which as noted above are both limited in amount and necessary to both continuation and intensification of agricultural use of the land, they could result in a substantial long-term impact to agricultural resources. However, because the project would not compete with agriculture for limited water supplies, the project’s contribution to the cumulative effect is minimal. This is also true for the Nacimiento Water Project and no-project alternatives. If groundwater option C were developed, the cumulative effect on agriculture would likely be significant, with consequent substantial limitations on agricultural intensification opportunities because of the constrained water supply.

6.0 Environmentally Superior Alternative

6.0 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

This section summarizes the environmental advantages and disadvantages associated with the proposed project and each of the alternatives. Based on this discussion, the environmentally superior alternative is identified as required by CEQA. According to the State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) (2):

“If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project" alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.”

To facilitate a clear understanding of the relative merits of the various alternatives, this section highlights the major differences between the impacts of the alternatives and proposed project. The project alternatives that were evaluated in Section 5.0 included:

Proposed Project (Connection to the State Water Project)

Water Conservation

Nacimiento Water Project (three Options)

Groundwater (three options)

No-project (doing nothing) This SEIR includes an analysis of the no-project alternative as required by the State CEQA guidelines. Exhibit 6-1 provides an overview of the environmentally preferred alternative for each issue area, the duration of the predominant adverse impacts, and the rationale for identifying the environmentally superior alternative. Typically, long-term impacts would receive a higher weighting than short-term impacts. However, each alternative’s impacts are limited to either the short-term construction phase, and/or the operational phase; the operational phase impacts would by nature occur only during periods of prolonged drought. Therefore, even the “long-term” impacts of each alternative are limited in duration. As a result, each issue area received equal weighting with no calculated differences between long-term and short-term impacts. The identification of the superior alternative for each issue area does not necessarily indicate that the potential impacts would not be adverse, but only less adverse than the other alternatives. While there may have been some slight differences between the proposed project and alternatives for these issue areas




(i.e., differences in impacts that would generally be imperceptible), impacts were generally adverse and of short duration. Environmentally Superior Alternative The Proposed Project is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The No Project Alternative and the Water Conservation (alone) Alternative were found to not be environmentally superior because they would result in placing the community in competition for scarce drought period water supplies with both agricultural and biological resources. Also, with the No Project Alternative (no action), supply shortages during drought periods could occur in the community, and, if water conservation efforts are insufficient during a drought, the Water Conservation Alternative could also result in supply shortages.


Exhibit 6-1 Comparison of Build Alternatives by Issue Area

(lowest number = lesser impact)

Superior Alternative Ranking Discussion of Rationale for Superior Alternative

Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

Issue Area

Duration of

Adverse Impacts

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C

Hydrology & Water Quality

Long-term 6 1 5 1 5 1 2 2 5 Alternatives that rely on imported water would result in lesser negative impacts on local hydrology; with minor effects on water quality due to construction activities. All other alternatives rely on local groundwater sources to one degree or another, with consequent drought-period impacts on local water supplies.


Long-term

4 2 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 Threats to the water supply from a seismic event fall into two categories; damage to the water supply system, and damage to the water supply source. All water systems are vulnerable to severe seismic events, although those with fewer components should be able to be repaired faster. Therefore, in the short-term aftermath of a severe earthquake, the groundwater pumping alternative would be superior because is does not involve miles of transmission pipeline. However, in the long term, a severe seismic event could reduce the capability of the bedrock aquifer, more or less permanently impacting the supply. Therefore, the alternatives are ranked based on their long-term vulnerability to seismic damage.




Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

Issue Area

Duration of

Adverse Impacts

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C


Short-term 0 2 0 4 5 4 2 2 2 The drainage, erosion & sedimentation impacts of all three alternatives are short-term, occurring during and immediately after construction. The Nacimiento project (Santa Margarita connection), involves a much longer length of pipeline with consequent increased impacts than either the groundwater pumping alternative or the state water connection. Although the groundwater pumping alternative may involve more than a single new connection to the water system (multiple new wells), all would be within the community, in close proximity to the existing distribution system.

Air Quality Short-term 0 1 0 4 5 6 1 1 1 Air quality impacts are short-term, occurring during and immediately after construction. The Nacimiento project (Santa Margarita connection), involves a much longer length of pipeline with consequent increased impacts than either the groundwater pumping alternative or the state water connection. Although the groundwater pumping alternative may involve more than a single new connection to the water system (multiple new wells), all would be within the community, in close proximity to the existing distribution system, and therefore would generate minimal construction air emissions.

Noise Short-term 0 2 0 3 4 5 2 2 2 Noise impacts are short-term, occurring during and immediately after construction. The Nacimiento project (Santa Margarita connection), involves a much longer length of pipeline with consequent increased impacts than either the groundwater pumping alternative or the state water connection. Although the groundwater pumping alternative may involve more than a single new connection to the water system (multiple new wells), all would




Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

Issue Area

Duration of

Adverse Impacts

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C

short term and could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Hazards & Hazardous Materials

Long-term 6 2 5 3 5 3 6 6 6 The primary risk to the environment from the alternatives is the release of disinfected water; however, the level of risk is considered less than significant. The risk of damage to the resource from pollution is greatest for the no project, water conservation, and groundwater pumping alternatives because of the vulnerability of the shallow groundwater basin from a number of pollution sources.


Short-term Long-term

0

6

1

0

0

5

3 0

4

6

3

2

1 0

1 0

1 6

Short term impacts to biological resources are the result of construction activities. Because of the larger area of disturbance, the Nacimiento project (Santa Margarita connection) has the potential for greater biological impacts, while the state water and groundwater pumping alternatives are judged to have roughly equal levels of short term impacts. Long-term impacts could result from the groundwater pumping alternatives due to the subtle effects of lowered water tables, resulting in negative effects on surface water levels, thereby impacting various aquatic organisms.




Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

Issue Area

Duration of

Adverse Impacts

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C

Cultural Resources

Long-term 0 1 0 4 5 5 2 2 3 Impacts to cultural resources would result from construction of the various delivery facilities. Given it longer length and route near/through known cultural resource sites, the Nacimiento project (Santa Margarita connection) would clearly have the greater impact to cultural resources. The state water project connection area of disturbance has been surveyed and no cultural materials were present. With respect to the groundwater pumping alternative, sites for future wells are unknown, but the high potential for resources in the Santa Margarita area plus the need for multiple construction areas results in a higher potential for impacts.

Land Use Long-term 6 2 5 2 4 2 1 1 4 Depending on the option chosen, each alternative would result in a degree of inconsistency with one or more general plan goals. Generally, those alternatives that rely on local groundwater sources would result in the greatest inconsistencies because of impacts on agricultural and biological resources that also rely on the same groundwater sources..


Short-term 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 All but the water conservation and no-project alternatives would have similar, construction related impacts to public services and utilities, however, none of those impacts are considered significant.


Short-term 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 All but the water conservation and no-project alternatives would have similar, construction related impacts to transportation and circulation, however, none of those impacts are considered significant.

Aesthetics & Visual Resources

Long-term 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 None of the four alternatives would result in long-term visual or aesthetic impacts.





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

Issue Area

Duration of

Adverse Impacts

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C

Agricultural Resources

Long-term 6 0 5 0 4 0 2 2 5 Long-term impacts could result from the groundwater pumping alternatives and water conservation alternative due to the competition for groundwater resources and the subsequent, incremental negative effects on agricultural resources.

TOTALS 34 16 29 31 55 39 26 26 41

7.0 Growth Inducement

7.0 GROWTH INDUCEMENT 7.1 Background Both the 1992 State Water EIR and the 2003 Nacimiento Water Project EIR evaluated the effects of providing supplemental water to the community of Santa Margarita. Both conclude that providing ongoing annual supplemental water supplies (100 acre feet) to the community of Santa Margarita could induce additional growth, depending on how those supplies are used. That is, the degree to which the additional water is used to off-set groundwater pumping, either to reduce overdraft or improve water quality, will determine how much additional growth is generated. However, the proposed project would not provide for an ongoing annual supplemental water supply. The project would establish a drought buffer program that would provide up to 80 acre feet of State Water only when a water supply emergency exists. Therefore, the potential growth-inducing effects of the proposed project could occur in two ways:

1. By relieving stress on the water supply during critical droughts, the project may result in additional growth “consuming” the drought buffer, placing additional residents in the path of a water supply emergency. The degree to which this effect may occur is dependent on how vigilant the community remains with respect to its water supply, given the inevitable tendency to accommodate growth within the limits of the general plan. Put another way, by removing the current concern about drought period water supplies, the community may become complacent about the overall water situation.

2. The second potential path to additional growth is the existence of the new

infrastructure. Any pipeline capable of delivering 80 acre feet of water over a three-month period is also theoretically capable of delivering up to 340 acre feet of water on an annual basis. Under this growth scenario, the existence of the pipeline becomes the foundation of efforts to amend or expand water supply contracts, alter the general plan, and remove or ignore other obstacles to growth. While seemingly remote, this scenario gains validity when it is assumed that these various actions take place over time and in an incremental manner. Also important is the understanding that as water supplies in the County become further constrained, growth will tend to occur first in those areas with immediate access to water, and second in those areas with both adequate infrastructure and the potential for accessing additional sources. At the same time, there are substantial obstacles to this scenario:

a) Although San Luis Obispo County has an unallocated reserve of State

Water, it should be expected that there will be substantial competition for the water in the future. There is no guarantee that water for growth beyond general plan limits will be available for Santa Margarita.



b) The capacity of the State Water project infrastructure is shared between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties; as with the water itself, it should be expected that there will be substantial competition for pipeline capacity in the future.

c) Santa Margarita is surrounded by agricultural lands. Given the strong

agricultural protection policies contained in the San Luis Obispo County General Plan it is unlikely that urban growth beyond the current community boundaries would occur.

Never-the-less, if additional growth were to occur as a result of the project, the effects are as follows. The 1992 analysis concluded that there was a potential for significant impacts to schools as a result of additional growth, particularly to the elementary school, which was at that time over capacity. The Nacimiento Water Project EIR approached the issue of growth inducement by updating the 1992 State Water EIR, using the same methodology and approach. By 2003, the Nacimiento EIR concluded that significant secondary effects could occur in the areas of traffic and air quality as well as to schools. The following sections summarize and update the growth inducing sections of both EIR’s, with respect to the community of Santa Margarita. Section 5 of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the State Water Project Coastal Branch Phase II Local Lines and Facilities, (Growth Inducement) is attached as Appendix D of this SEIR. Section 7 of the Final EIR for the Nacimiento Water Project (Growth Inducement) is hereby incorporated by reference in this section, and is also attached as Appendix E to this SEIR. 7.2 CEQA Requirements The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15126 (d) and Section 15126.2(d) state that an EIR must 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, using a reasonable worst case analysis. It specifically states that projects which would remove obstacles to population growth (such as bringing supplemental water supplies to an area), may "further tax" other existing community service facilities, and this impact must be addressed. The secondary impacts of growth inducement include reducing the service capacities of roads, sewer, schools and other necessary public services which are needed to accommodate additional development. Removing what was previously a constraint to development, by supplying supplemental water, could also affect the expected rate of growth in a community, unless adopted growth management policies exist to regulate the amount of development.



The analysis in both the State Water and Nacimiento Water Project EIR’s made the following assumptions:

1. The project, by supplying supplemental water, would remove an obstacle to growth, and lead to increased growth

2. Growth in any area cannot be assumed to be beneficial, detrimental, or of

little significance to the environment [CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15126.2(d)]

3. Growth inducement is an indirect project impact, which has secondary effects that could be significant

4. It is recognized that roads, schools, air quality, water, sewer systems, and

other resources in San Luis Obispo County have become overtaxed. These resources could be impacted by growth resulting from the proposed project and would be considered secondary impacts

The CEQA Guidelines indicate that it is reasonable to conclude that if, as a result of a project, water is removed as a constraint to growth in a community, the project can be considered growth-inducing. Also, recognizing that communities sometimes tend to grow even when resources are highly constrained and that growth is a function of each jurisdiction's General Plan, it is also assumed that if a project results in a community having a surplus of water at build-out, that surplus water could be growth-inducing with secondary significant impacts, as surplus water generally allows for accelerated growth under a community's General Plan. The rate and perhaps the significance of such growth will depend on the existing situation in the community and local decisions regarding the use of water. 7.3 Conclusions With respect to the community of Santa Margarita, the following conclusions can be drawn from, and with respect to, the information contained in the 1992 State Water and 2003 Nacimiento Project EIR’s:

1. Water is not currently a constraint to growth in Santa Margarita. The 1992 EIR found that water was not constraining growth in Santa Margarita, while the 2003 EIR found that water was a constraint. The 2003 conclusion is apparently based on the County’s Resource Management System (RMS), which assigned a “supply uncertainty” level of concern to the water supply for Santa Margarita. However, no action to restrict the rate of growth in the community by limiting water hook-ups or building permits has been initiated, and none is currently contemplated. CSA-23 has, however, instituted a water supply warning system in an effort to encourage increased conservation by current users, in appreciation of several consecutive years of below-normal rainfall.



2. The community of Santa Margarita is between 85% and 90% built-out, and there are no plans or proposals to expand the urban boundary. Therefore, any growth that does occur in Santa Margarita will likely occur within the current general plan boundaries, meaning that un-planned growth is not anticipated.

3. The 2003 EIR concluded that significant secondary impacts to traffic could

occur from additional growth. The 2003 EIR lacks specifics as to where and how these impacts could occur. Analysis of the roadways in and through the community indicate that no roadways or intersections currently operate at unacceptable levels of service, and that no unacceptable levels of service would occur at build-out. The lone exception in the community is the wait times at the three at-grade railroad crossings within the community which are dependent on railroad traffic, not vehicular traffic. From a more regional perspective, it can be concluded that traffic on Highway 101 will, in the future, suffer from reduced levels of service, and that an increment of the impact will be generated by traffic originating in Santa Margarita.

4. The 2003 EIR concluded that significant secondary impacts to air quality

would also be significant. Similar to the traffic situation, the 2003 EIR lacks specifics as to where and how these impacts could occur. The growth expected in Santa Margarita is both small in comparison to that in the region as a whole, and is consistent with the area’s Clean Air Plan, which seeks to focus growth within existing urban reserve lines. However, from a more regional perspective, it can be concluded that air quality in the Salinas Valley may, in the future, deteriorate and that an increment of the impact will be generated by additional growth in Santa Margarita.

5. The 2003 EIR concluded that significant secondary impacts to schools

would be significant. The focus is on Santa Margarita Elementary School, which at the time was over-capacity. However, for the 2008-2009 school year, the school had 329 students with a capacity of 358. However, any additional students generated by growth in the community could exceed the school’s capacity. On the other hand, if water is not currently a constraining factor to growth in the community, it could be concluded that growth in the student population will occur with or without the project. Therefore, it appears that the secondary effects of growth on schools would be the same across all of the alternatives, including the no-project alternative.

6. Surplus of water. The 2003 EIR concludes that the provision of 100 acre

feet of water to Santa Margarita would be growth inducing because the community would have an excess of water at build-out. This drought reliability project however, would not provide excess water to enable




substantial growth, subject to the discussion at the beginning of this chapter.

Because the project provides a limited water supply to be used only in times of extended drought, and given the existing physical, regulatory, and policy limits on expanding the water supply, the project will not foster a substantial amount of population growth, and certainly not an amount that would allow the community to exceed general plan buildout. The increment of population growth that could occur as a result of the increased security of the water supply situation in CSA 23 cannot be considered to be considerable in relation to the existing population or the ability of roadways, air quality, and schools to accommodate that level of growth. From a regional and cumulative growth perspective, traffic on Highway 101 will, in the future, suffer from reduced levels of service, with an increment of the impact generated by traffic originating in Santa Margarita. Similar to regional growth-induced traffic impacts, air quality in the Salinas Valley may, in the future, deteriorate and an increment of the impact will be generated by additional growth in Santa Margarita. With respect to schools, Santa Margarita Elementary School is approaching capacity. Never-the-less, growth generated by securing the water supply in times of drought does not constitute a substantial increase, and is therefore not significant.

8.0 Summary of Mitigation Measures & Mitigation Monitoring Plan


8.1 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures have been developed for a number of the impacts identified for the proposed project and alternatives. This section provides a listing of the identified mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are provided for each issue area and each alternative in Exhibit 8-1 below:

MITIGATION MEASURES AND ALTERNATIVES Exhibit 8-1

Mitigation Measures and Alternatives Table

Alternatives Mitigation Measures

Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B C


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GEO 1: If a shallow ground-water table is encountered, dewatering will be necessary during excavation for the project. Shallow groundwater may be avoided by timing the excavation to occur during the dry season.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GEO 2: Excavation safety impacts may be mitigated when appropriate by trench side-wall protection devices such as buttresses and shoring. Excavations shall conform to OSHA's regulations. Side wall protection is only required in trenches 5 feet deep or more.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GEO 3: Specific seismic geotechnical investigations for the pipeline shall be conducted and included in the final project construction plans.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GEO 4: Effects of seismic shaking shall be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters applicable to the project. Such seismic design practices assume a design ground acceleration that is equal to two-thirds the maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration. A certified engineering geologist or civil engineer would need to conduct site specific investigations to determine what the design criteria should be. These investigations shall be conducted prior to final design.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

GEO 5: Where the potential for liquefaction is great, such as in poorly consolidated alluvium, mitigation will be needed. These mitigations may include strengthened pipe and pipe anchors, flexible piping and/or removal of material. Detailed geotechnical investigations shall be conducted in all areas with significant liquefaction potential to identify appropriate design criteria.





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B

C

X

X

X

X

X

X

X GEO 6: Settlement or subsidence impacts will be mitigated by including flexible piping, strengthened pipe and/or removal of material and re-compaction where determined to be necessary by the design engineer.


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 1: An Erosion Control Plan will be prepared in conjunction with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (if required) to devise specific soil erosion control measures. The plan would include but not be limited to the following measures: • Construction activities through areas of concern will be scheduled during the dry season (April 15 to October 15) if feasible. • Revegetation of areas disturbed or cleared during construction will occur after construction is completed and before the rainy season.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 2: Inspect erosion control measures daily and repair all damage immediately.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 3: Prepare in advance and have construction crews ready to implement an emergency construction site securing procedure, which will include personnel and equipment evacuation, trench closure, and materials removal procedures.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 4: Heavy equipment and construction activities will be restricted to the defined construction ROW. Equipment access and construction through drainages should be conducted from the banks rather than within the drainage.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 5: Do not store construction materials or spoils within the channel or banks.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 6: Obtain weather updates on a daily basis, or more frequently if inclement conditions are threatening.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 7: CSA 23 will develop and implement a plan providing emergency response and repair procedures for an accidental rupture. The plan will include remedial erosion control measures for areas downstream of the rupture.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 8: CSA 23 will implement a regular inspection and maintenance program to detect possible problems with pipeline integrity.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

DES 9: CSA 23 will provide thorough inspection of the pipeline materials and construction techniques while the pipelines are being installed. The County will specify the use of materials with proven reliability only.

Air Quality

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

AQ-1: Project contract documents will include the following dust control measures: a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible. b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B

C wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (nonpotable) water should be used whenever possible. c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. All PM10 mitigation measures required must be included on grading and building plans. In addition, the County should designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for finish grading of the structure.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

AQ-2: Prior to any grading activities associated with the project, the County will ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the Air Pollution Control District. If NOA is found at the site, the County will comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B

C Safety Program for approval by the APCD.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

AQ-3: Project contract documents will include the following idling restrictions near sensitive receptors for both on and off-road equipment: 1. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; 2. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted; 3. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended whenever possible; and, 4. Signs that specify the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced at the construction site.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

AQ-4: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered: 1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or removal 2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate 3. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers are permitted 4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD's construction phase thresholds 5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance 6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering Division at 781-5912.

Noise

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N-1: Construction activities shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. Non-noise generating construction activities such as interior painting are not subject to these restrictions.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N-2: Provide two-week advance notice to residences within 500 feet of the construction site. The announcements shall state where and when construction will be scheduled. It shall also provide tips on reducing noise intrusion, e.g. closing windows facing the construction area.





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B

C

X

X X

X

X

X

X

N-3: Maintain proper mufflers on all internal combustion and vehicle engines to reduce noise to the maximum extent feasible.


X

X

X

X

X

X

X

BIO-1: The project limits will be clearly delineated on all construction plans. Prior to any construction work beginning, including any vegetation clearing, flagging and/or fencing, as required by the biological monitor, shall be placed to clearly delineate the project limits. No construction work (including storage of materials) shall occur outside of the project limits. Any required fencing shall remain in place during the entire construction period and checked as needed by the environmental monitor and/or resident engineer.

Cultural Resources

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CR-1 During construction, in the event cultural resources are unearthed or discovered, the following standards apply: a) Construction activities shall cease and the Public Works Environmental Programs Division shall be notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and/or paleontologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and federal law. The County shall implement the mitigation as required by the Environmental Coordinator. b) In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are discovered during construction, the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the Public Works Environmental Programs Division so that proper disposition may be accomplished.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CR-2 Prior to completion of final design, the county will conduct a phase I archaeological survey, conducted by a qualified archaeologist approved by the Environmental Coordinator that assesses the potential impacts of all ground disturbing activities. The project shall implement the recommendations of the archaeologist, as required by the Environmental Coordinator. Recommendations may include Phase II testing and/or data recovery.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

CR-3 If cultural sites are discovered near work areas during the Phase I survey, and if recommended by the project archaeologist, during all ground disturbing construction activities, the County will retain a qualified archaeologist to monitor all earth disturbing activities, per the approved monitoring plan. If any significant archaeological resources or human remains are found during monitoring, work shall stop within the immediate vicinity (precise area to be determined by the archaeologist in the field) of the resource until such time as the resource can be evaluated by an archaeologist and any other appropriate individuals.





Nac

imie

nto

Gro

un

dw

ater

No

Pro

ject

Sta

te W

ater

Co

nse

rvat

ion

A B C A B

C

X

X

X

X

X

X

X CR-4 Upon completion of all monitoring/mitigation activities the archaeologist will submit a report to the Environmental Coordinator summarizing all monitoring/mitigation activities and confirming that all recommended mitigation measures have been met.

Land Use

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

LU-1: The project will incorporate the comprehensive water conservation measures described under the water conservation alternative as an integral part of the proposed action.


X

X

X

Construction of any of the Nacimiento options would require the application of standard construction mitigation for impacts to roads and other existing utilities, as specified in the Nacimiento Water Project FEIR.


X

X

X

Construction of any of the Nacimiento options would require the application of standard construction mitigation for impacts to roads and circulation, as specified in the Nacimiento Water Project FEIR.

8.2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan The purpose of a Mitigation Monitoring Plan is to provide a program to examine, document and record compliance with the environmental plans and specifications pertinent to the proposed project, in order to comply with Section 21081.6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This plan provides the standards and methods necessary to ensure and document the implementation of the environmental mitigation measures which have been included in the project description as well as with the conditions of approval placed on project permits. Responsibility for ensuring successful implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan lies with the County of San Luis Obispo (CSA-23), as the project proponent and Lead Agency for the project under CEQA. If the recommended mitigation measures and monitoring plan are implemented successfully, the potential significant adverse effects stemming from project construction will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation monitoring will be carried out by the Environmental Programs Division of the County's Department of Public Works. The Environmental Programs Division




provides environmental services to the Public Works Department, including mitigation compliance and monitoring, with oversight by the County’s Environmental Coordinator. Upon approval of the CEQA document, and issuance of all required permits (if any), the Environmental Programs Division will assign internal responsibility for compliance with each mitigation measure to one or more members of the project team. Responsible parties include the environmental division, the project manager, the resident engineer, and/or on-site monitors. Mitigation measures are organized into pre-construction, construction, and post construction tasks. Compliance with mitigation measures is documented in the project file through written reports, accompanied by project photos where necessary. Post construction monitoring of revegetation and other project components is documented by yearly reports, on a schedule typically determined by one or more of the project permits. Depending on the complexity of the post construction mitigation effort, tasks will be carried out by county staff or technical experts under contract to the County. Post construction monitoring is typically conducted for three to five years, depending on permit requirements and success criteria. Where necessary, construction personnel will be required to attend a crew orientation meeting. The meeting will be conducted by the Resident Engineer (the County staff member assigned to oversee the construction of the project) and will be used to acquaint the construction crews with the environmental sensitivities of the project site. The orientation meeting shall place an emphasis on the need for adherence to the mitigation measures and permit conditions as well as the need for cooperation and communication among all parties concerned (i.e., Resident Engineer, Environmental Programs Manager, Environmental Coordinator, construction personnel) in working together to solve problems and arrive at solutions in the field.

9.0 References and Preparers 9.1 References 9.1.1 Bibliography Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2008. Final Environmental Impact Report for Santa Margarita

Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision Project and Future Development Program.

Hopkins Groundwater Consultants Inc., June 2006. Preliminary Hydrogeological Study,

Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2006a. Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and California Red-Legged

Frog Habitat Assessment for the Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision Project and Future Development Program EIR, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Planning and Building, San Luis Obispo, California.

Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2006b. 90-Day Protocol Survey Report for U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Listed Vernal Pool Branchiopods on the Santa Margarita Ranch Property in the Community of Santa Margarita, San Luis Obispo County, California. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Planning and Building, San Luis Obispo, California.

Todd Engineers, October 27, 2004. Technical memorandum Groundwater Resources of

CSA 23 – Santa Margarita. Althouse and Meade, Inc. 2003. Inventory of Wildlife and Plant Species on the Six

Rancho Parcels of the Santa Margarita Ranch. Revised in 2005. Marine Research Specialists, 2003. Final Environmental Impact Report for the

Nacimiento Water Project Boyle Engineering Corporation, April 2002. County of SLO Drinking Water Source

Assessment Santa Margarita Well No. 3. Boyle Engineering Corporation, October 2001. Santa Margarita Wells Watershed Survey

prepared for County of SLO. Boyle Engineering Corporation, September 2001. County of SLO Drinking Water Source

Assessment Santa Margarita Well No. 1, 2, and 4. Cannon Associates, January 2000. County Service Area No. 23 – Santa Margarita:

Preliminary Review of Supplemental Water Supply Alternatives, prepared for County of SLO.

California Department of Health Services, February 10, 1998. SLO Waterworks District

No. 6, Santa Margarita, SLO 4010024 (Water Permit No. 04-06-98P-006).


McRae, Brian E., August 1994. A Hydrologic Inventory of Santa Margarita’s Groundwater Basin, a Thesis in partial fulfillment of B.S. in Civil Engineering, California Polytechnic, San Luis Obispo, CA.

Envicom Corporation, July 1993. Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Analysis

for the Santa Margarita Ranch. Luhdorff and Scalmanini, May 1992. Well Records for CSA 23 - Well 3. CA Department of Water Resources, 1991. Final Environmental Impact Report for the

State Water Project Coastal Branch (Phase II) and Mission Hills Extension. Mann, John F., September 16, 1987. Ground Water Resources of the Santa Margarita

Ranch, San Luis Obispo County, California. California Department of Health Services, December 18, 1986. Letter to SLO Health

Agency Director: Water Supply Facilities at CWWD No. 6. Wiese, John H., June 10, 1986. Letter to SLO County Engineering Department (Mr. Hal

Wilkinson): Proposed water well tests Santa Margarita. Wiese, John H., April 2, 1986. Letter to SLO County Engineering Department (Ms. Ann

Hall): Groundwater, Santa Margarita. Wiese, John H., March 16, 1986. Letter to SLO County Engineering Department (Mr. Hal

Wilkinson): Sources of groundwater in Santa Margarita area. Harry R. Feder, Consulting Geologist, September 19, 1985. Letter: Santa Margarita

Ranch Wells 8G-1, 9R-1 Recommendations to Mr. Wallace H. Campbell. Harry R. Feder, Consulting Geologist, November 18, 1981. Letter: Santa Margarita

Ranch Ground Water to Nahama & Weagrant Energy Company. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers. Inc. (Robert C. Scott), June 1979.

Ground-Water Reconnaissance on the Santa Margarita Ranch West of Highway 101.

Hart, Earl W., 1976. Basic Geology of the Santa Margarita Area, San Luis Obispo

County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 199. John Carollo Engineers, 1964. Waterworks Survey for SLO County Waterworks District

No. 6, Santa Margarita, California. California Department of Water Resources, May 1958. San Luis Obispo County

Investigation, Bulletin No. 18, Volume I: Text and Plates, Volume II Appendices.



9.1.2 Agencies and Individuals Contacted San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District San Luis Obispo County Clerk San Luis Obispo County Fire Department (CAL FIRE) San Luis Obispo County Department of General Services – Parks & Recreation San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning & Building San Luis Obispo County Division of Environmental Health San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner California Department of Fish & Game – Central Region California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Central Coast Region California Department of Water Resources Native American Heritage Commission Office of Historic Preservation Governor’s Office of Planning & Research State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights Natural Resources Conservation Service – Templeton Service Center U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Ventura Atascadero Unified School District Santa Margarita Volunteer Fire Department County of Santa Barbara Water Agency Central Coast Water Authority Agriculture Task Force, San Luis Obispo California Native Plant Society Central Coast Salmon Enhancement 9.2 List of Preparers This Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was reviewed and approved by the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Coordinator. The document was prepared by staff of the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works: Mark Hutchinson, Environmental Programs Manager Eric Wier, Environmental Resource Specialist Jill Ogren, Project Manager/Engineer Kate Ballantyne, Environmental Resource Specialist Kelly Sypolt, Planner II with contributions by staff of the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building: Murry Wilson, Environmental Resource Specialist

10.0 COMMENTS AND REPONSES TO COMMENTS

Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report were received from the following:

Commenter Agency/Organization Date

Scott Morgan State Clearinghouse May 16, 2011

George Sullivan CSA23 Advisory June 2, 2011

Michael Winn Water Resources Advisory Committee May 12, 2011

Gary Arcemont Air Pollution Control District May 13, 2011

Robert B. Cooke Department of Water Resources April 29, 2011

Dick Butler National Marine Fisheries Service May 18, 2011

David Blakely Resident June 3, 2011

Annotated copies of the comment letters together with responses to the comments are contained in this section. Copies of voluminous attachments are on file with the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works and posted on the Department’s website where noted.

10.0 Comments and Responses


Commenter: San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee, Michael Winn Chairperson. May 12, 2011 Response to comment 1 The volume of drought reliability water (80 acre feet) and the annual allocation (5 acre feet) were developed based on the community’s desire to limit project costs and their experience in the 1987-1992 drought period, as described in Appendix A of the EIR (2010 Water Supply Reliability Report). Beginning on page 8, the Report describes a drought planning scenario of 3-5 years of below average rainfall that eventually renders the alluvial well inoperative or nearly so, leaving the community solely dependent on the secondary well and conservation measures. Based on records of overall pumping and consumption, the County determined that up to an additional 80 acre feet of water annually available during a drought period would afford the community a sufficient water supply. A second factor in determining the appropriate drought buffer amount is the availability of partners. Any partner working with CSA 23 partner needs to be able to operate during drought periods with 80 acre feet less water from the State Water Project. Increasing the amount involved in the project would potentially reduce partnership opportunities, although there could be more than one partner involved in the project. Thirdly, the project presents a potential for growth inducement. As discussed in detail in chapter 7.0 of the EIR, the potential growth-inducing effects of the proposed project could occur in two ways. Of those, the first is important to a discussion of the amount of water proposed for the drought buffer:

1. By relieving stress on the water supply during critical droughts, the project may result in additional growth “consuming” the drought buffer, placing additional residents in the path of a water supply emergency. The degree to which this effect may occur is dependent on how vigilant the community remains with respect to its water supply, given the inevitable tendency to accommodate growth within the limits of the general plan. Put another way, by removing the current concern about drought period water supplies, the community may become complacent about the overall water situation.

Increasing the amount of water proposed for the drought buffer could exacerbate the growth inducing effect described in chapter 7.0, and quoted above. Response to comment 2 Typically, and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the EIR should focus on the potential environmental effects of a project. Therefore it may be inappropriate to include some information in the EIR that is better suited for inclusion in staff reports, engineering analyses, or other reports. At the same time, the findings mandated by CEQA would be an appropriate location to include the type of information suggested by the comment.



It is also important to understand that the statement “any partner that would be holding water in reserve for Santa Margarita” may convey an incorrect assumption. All of the water that would come to Santa Margarita during a drought period under this project would come from the State Water Project. The water would be available because the partner(s) would reduce their use of State Water by up to 80 acre feet, making the supply available to Santa Margarita via the new connection to the State Water pipeline. The partner(s) would neither hold nor deliver the water. Response to comment 3 As noted in the response to comment #2 above, all of the water that would come to Santa Margarita during a drought period under this project would come from the State Water Project. The water would be available because the partner(s) would reduce their use of State Water by up to 80 acre feet, making the supply available to Santa Margarita via the new connection to the State Water pipeline. The partner(s) would neither hold nor deliver the water. It will, however, be important to ensure that any partners have sufficient water to supply their own needs during drought periods to avoid triggering a water supply emergency in another location. Response to comment 4 See response to comment number 3 above. Response to comment 5 See response to comment number 3 above. Response to comment 6 As noted in the response to comment 3 above, all water that would be delivered to CSA 23 during a drought would be State Water, treated at the Polonio Pass water treatment plant and conveyed via the existing State Water Pipeline through the proposed new connection at Santa Margarita. Water physically stored in the listed local reservoirs, and in local groundwater basins, would not be delivered to Santa Margarita. Response to comment 7 Exhibits 2-3 and 2-4 list the State Water contractors in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. All of the contractors on either list are potential partners with CSA 231. At this point in time there is no information to suggest that any of the entities on either list could not be a reliable partner. Consequently, the EIR notes, in Section 2.5, that:

1 In January 2011 CSA-16 (Shandon) indicated a desire to rescind an earlier decision to sell their State Water allocation. It is not known at this time how, or even if, CSA-16 would partner with CSA-23.



“Because potential environmental impacts associated with a project partner’s participation are not, and cannot be known at this time, additional review pursuant to CEQA may be required when a partner is identified, and before any irretrievable commitment of resources (water) is made by the County of San Luis Obispo on behalf of CSA 23. Depending on the severity of potential effects that additional environmental review may consist of an Addendum to this SEIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, a Supplement to this SEIR pursuant to section 15163, or a Subsequent EIR pursuant to section 15162.”

Two factors drive the preparation of the EIR at this point in the process: 1) The key question before decision makers is to determine whether or not CSA 23 should move forward with a drought reliability project at all, and what the approach should be (i.e., should work efforts move forward with State Water as the focus). 2) At the same time, it is recognized that evaluating each and every potential partner at this time would not provide meaningful information as agencies are reluctant to invest in a program that does not yet have basic approvals. See also the additional discussion in section 2.5 of this EIR. Response to comment 8 The County operations center has an additional 95 acre feet of State Water that is not traded to CMC or used at the center. The provision of 80 acre feet of water that is not currently being imported into San Luis Obispo County would not change the volume of water being released into the Chorro Creek drainage. Response to comment 9 As noted in the response to comments 2-6 above, there is no possibility that groundwater in the Shandon area would be moved to Santa Margarita via the State Water pipeline, or any other method. If Shandon were to partner with CSA 23, then Shandon would rely on pumping additional groundwater during droughts as 80 acre feet of its State Water allocation would be going to Santa Margarita. Response to comment 10 Comments noted. See also the discussion in section 3.1.3 of the EIR. Response to comment 11 Comments noted. See also the discussion in chapters 5.1 and 5.9 of the EIR. Response to comment 12 The project is not restricted to single partner options. In section 2.1 of the EIR the project description notes that the project will “Establish an agreement or agreements whereby”, and in section 2.7 of the EIR “The proposed project requires the participation



of one or more project partners, that is, one or more State Water participants who will work with CSA 23 . . .” [emphasis added] Response to comment 13 As noted in the response to comment #1 above, the project has been sized to carry CSA 23 through the most severe drought period for which current water supply systems were operating. That period extended for five years. Contractual obligations may vary between partners; for instance, CSA 23 could conceivably partner with five different agencies, each agreeing to supply emergency water for a single year. However, as noted above, no final agreement(s) can be signed until the appropriate level of environmental review (and public review) has been accomplished. Response to comment 14 In as much as the purpose of the project is to protect the community during periods of drought, it does not seem prudent to install new wells into the same shallow aquifer that is described in various technical reports. We note that the Todd Report (included as Appendix B-2 to this EIR) identifies potential water quality problems in the Yerba Buena Creek watershed linked to the use of septic systems (pages 12-14) . The Yerba Buena Creek watershed covers about 80% of the community. It is likely that during drought periods these same effects could be exacerbated due to the lower than normal inflow into the shallow aquifer. This leaves the Santa Margarita Creek watershed for additional wells, yet well #4 is already positioned to utilize this source. Wells outside the community boundary are not considered feasible at this time because of concerns related to General Plan conformity and water rights issues. Response to comment 15 Comments from Mr. David Blakely and responses to those comments are included in this section of the FEIR.



Commenter: National Marine Fisheries Service, Dick Butler North Central Coast Office Supervisor, May 18, 2011 Response to comment 1 The County of San Luis Obispo, Department of Public Works, appreciates NMFS’s review of the draft EIR. The summary characterization of the project description is consistent with the Draft EIR. Response to comment 2 The Department of Public Works shares NMFS’s concern with the status of steelhead in the listed watersheds and is committed to fully implementing projects and programs to address any potential impacts on the species related to public works activities. Public Work’s efforts include implementation of our Storm Water Management Program in both Santa Margarita and Garden Farms; water quality based Best Management Practices for County Road Maintenance efforts; and the operation of the CSA 23 water system in both normal and drought conditions. It should be noted that the proposed project does not involve the Trout Creek watershed; option B of the Nacimiento Water Project Alternative would likely involve the Trout Creek Watershed, but the proposed project does not. Response to comment 3 The Department of Public Works generally agrees with this comment, however, it may not be appropriate to conclude that the local hydrogeological system is in overdraft. CSA 23 appropriately relies on groundwater located beneath the community which overlies only a relatively small portion of the watershed that contributes to the local hydrogeological system. While groundwater located below the boundary of CSA 23 is not of sufficient quantity during drought periods, it does not necessarily follow that the overall system is in overdraft. We agree that, as a general rule, restoring groundwater and improving aquifer recharge would likely improve flow conditions in affected streams, however the focus of the proposed project is on supplying enough water during drought periods to meet the health and safety needs of the community. Response to comment 4 The Department of Public Works generally agrees with this comment. Response to comment 5 The proposed project would be implemented only during periods of drought, pursuant to a declaration of water supply emergency by the County. In normal and average years, the current groundwater pumping regime would continue. As noted in the DEIR and in the comment, on average, a total of 197 acre feet of water is pumped with a return of 99 acre feet, resulting in a net withdrawal of 98 acre feet. During the most extreme drought, up to 80 acre feet per year would be added to the system via the State Water Project, along with extensive mandatory conservation measures. Assuming a 20%



overall reduction in use due to conservation, and the elimination of all outdoor uses, approximately 158 acre feet would be supplied to the community, with about 78 acre feet coming from groundwater. Returns from septic systems could approach 50% of the total use, resulting in a near net zero consumption of local groundwater. This could conceivably result in better flow conditions for steelhead, however, given that it would occur only during drought periods, it seems likely that other external factors (lack of timely rainfall, extraction by other users, natural declines in groundwater levels) would diminish the benefits of the project relative to steelhead. At the same time, the project would ensure that the community would have no discernable impacts on steelhead during drought periods. Lesser drought periods, where the amount supplied via the State Water pipeline is less than 80 acre feet, would likewise diminish the benefits of the project relative to steelhead. Response to comment 6 Comment noted: the formal opinions expressed by the NMFS relative to alternatives will have considerable weight as the proposed project proceeds through the process. Response to comment 7 The Department of Public Works generally agrees with this comment, however it is important to note that the project would be implemented only during periods of drought, as discussed in the response to comment #5 above. Response to comment 8 Much of the information necessary to make estimates of the effect of current groundwater pumping by CSA 23 on stream flow is contained in section 5.1.1 of the Draft EIR (The Environmental Setting section of the Hydrology and Water Quality chapter). This section describes the existing conditions relative to precipitation, evapotranspiration, stream flow, groundwater outflow, pumpage, and storage. As noted in section 5.1.1 of the EIR, the Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena watersheds produce an annual average of 27,747 acre feet of water. Average annual stream flow between the two creeks is 4,933 acre feet. According to the text, taken primarily from the 2004 Todd Report (Appendix B-2 of the EIR) “With regard to stream flow, local stream flow is intermittent and largely represents winter-time runoff . . . an increase in groundwater pumping would likely affect subsurface flow.” A conclusion that current groundwater pumping primarily impacts subsurface flow is also supported by the following paragraph: “Assuming that all other inflows and outflows are negligible, then the total amount of subsurface flow entering the town of Santa Margarita from the south is about 535 AFY (436 AFY + 99 AFY). Pumping by CSA 23 intercepts about 37 percent of this flow (197 AFY/535 AFY) and consumes about 19 percent. The subsurface outflow from the area contributes to groundwater supplies downstream, including the Garden Farms area, Atascadero Sub-basin, and Paso Robles Basin as a whole.”



Response to comment 9 The Department of Public Works generally agrees with this comment. Response to comment 10 The Department of Public Works generally agrees with this comment as it applies during drought periods, however, the response to comment #8 above provides more information on the probable effects of current groundwater pumping on stream flow. Response to comment 11 The Department of Public Works appreciates the NMFS’s support for this project. Response to comment 12 The Department of Public Works will provide the NMFS’s with ongoing notice and information regarding the status of the project.



Commenter: David Blakely. July 8, 2011 Response to comment A The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that environmental documents, including EIR’s, must “reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15084(e). Section 15084 also states lead agencies, such as the County, may contract with consultants to prepare EIR’s and other CEQA documents, and may even accept a draft prepared by the applicant, but must ultimately subject all information to the agency’s own review and analysis.

15084. PREPARING THE DRAFT EIR (a) The draft EIR shall be prepared directly by or under contract to the Lead Agency. The required contents of a draft EIR are discussed in Article 9 beginning with Section 15120. (d) The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR. (1) Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff. (2) Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR. (3) Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant, a consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. (4) Executing a third party contract or Memorandum of Understanding with the applicant to govern the preparation of a draft EIR by an independent contractor. (5) Using a previously prepared EIR. (e) Before using a draft prepared by another person, the Lead Agency shall subject the draft to the agency’s own review and analysis. The draft EIR which is sent out for public review must reflect the independent judgment of the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency is responsible for the adequacy and objectivity of the draft EIR. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21082.1, Public Resources Code.

This EIR was prepared in a manner that fully complies with the requirements of CEQA, as noted above. When consultants are utilized in the County’s CEQA process they act as an extension of County staff, and always under the direction of County staff. Consultants are used to manage workload and provide specialized expertise. This EIR uses consultant expertise in the form of the technical reports upon which the current analysis is based and two of the three EIR’s that it supplements (The third EIR was prepared by the State Department of Water Resources, the agency that built the State Water Project). The technical reports have been made a part of the document as appendices and include two separate Groundwater Studies, both performed by consultants under contract to the County. It should be noted that County CEQA environmental documents are prepared by County staff working in both the Public Works and Planning Departments. The large majority of these documents, including those for the County’s own projects such as parks, public works, general services, and general plan documents, are prepared without the involvement of outside consultants. All CEQA documents, whether prepared by County staff or consultants working at the direction of staff, are reviewed and approved by the County Environmental Coordinator before being presented to County decision making



bodies such as the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission. The County’s CEQA Guidelines, which are required by State law, establish the Environmental Coordinator as the person designated by the Board of Supervisors to render CEQA determinations and recommendations, administer the CEQA process and review environmental documents submitted to the County by federal, state, or local Agencies. All County CEQA documents, including those prepared by Public Works environmental staff, are submitted to the Environmental Coordinator for review and approval before being released for formal public review. The Public Works Department’s approach to CEQA, and all other local, State and Federal environmental regulations, is to embody the spirit of full compliance. The Public Works Environmental Division operates as a separate division responsible to upper management for ensuring compliance. All Public Works staff are instructed to implement the department mission statement:

Provide public safety and services that ensure health and safety and enhance quality of life for the community.

Environmental staff also follows the Division Mission Statement:

Maintain and improve public facilities and safety while conserving and enhancing environmental resources for the benefit of the community.

Environmental staff managers in both the Public Works and Planning Department environmental divisions are members of the California Association of Environmental Professionals and follow that organizations ethics statement:

“I will ensure a good faith effort at full disclosure, technical accuracy, sound methodology, clarity, and objectivity in the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of environmental information by me or under my direction.”

Response to comment 1 The focus of the EIR is to provide information about the environmental consequences of a proposed project. Funding issues are not part of that analysis. However, it should be noted that the USDA may fund conservation programs if the program and/or overall project meet the then in place requirements of USDA. In as much as outside agency funding is a part of the overall financial implications of the project, no final decision on the project would likely be made until all of the financial effects are known. Response to comment 2 According to the “Preliminary Hydrogeological Study, Santa Margarita Ranch Agricultural Residential Cluster Subdivision” (Hopkins 2006) and included as appendix B-1 of this EIR, CSA-23’s well #3 is drilled in the low-permeability Santa Margarita Formation (page 17 paragraph 4), which is a 1,000 feet thick sandstone that forms a poor to moderate aquifer for groundwater production (page 14 paragraph 4). Plate 4 of the Hopkins study, the Geologic Map (Dibblee 2004), clearly shows the school well to also be located in the Santa Margarita Formation. Also, according to the “Technical



Memorandum Groundwater Resources of CSA 23 – Santa Margarita” (Todd Engineers 2004) and included as appendix B-2 of this EIR, “Well 3 taps the low-permeability Santa Margarita Formation . . .” (page 5 paragraph 2). Plate 4 of the Hopkins study, the Geologic Map (included as Figure 5.2-1 in this EIR), clearly shows the school well to also be located in the Santa Margarita Formation. Response to comment 3 Exhibits 2-3 and 2-4 list the State Water contractors in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. All of the contractors on either list are potential partners with CSA 23. At this point in time there is no information to suggest that any of the entities on either list could not be a reliable partner. Consequently, the EIR notes, in Section 2.5, that:

“Because potential environmental impacts associated with a project partner’s participation are not, and cannot be known at this time, additional review pursuant to CEQA may be required when a partner is identified, and before any irretrievable commitment of resources (water) is made by the County of San Luis Obispo on behalf of CSA 23. Depending on the severity of potential effects that additional environmental review may consist of an Addendum to this SEIR, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15164, a Supplement to this SEIR pursuant to section 15163, or a Subsequent EIR pursuant to section 15162.”

Two factors drive the preparation of the EIR at this point in the process: 1) The key question before decision makers is to determine whether or not CSA 23 should move forward with a drought reliability project at all, and what the approach should be (i.e., should work efforts move forward with State Water as the focus). 2) At the same time, it is recognized that evaluating each and every potential partner at this time would not provide meaningful information as agencies are reluctant to invest in a program that does not yet have basic approvals. See also the added discussion in section 2.5 of this EIR. Response to comment 4 Both the Hopkins and Todd reports describe the alluvial aquifer as the primary source of water for CSA 23, and note that well #4 taps the alluvial aquifer. The alluvium is clearly mapped on the geologic maps utilized by both Hopkins (Dibblee 2004) and Todd (Hart 1976), maps that are accepted by the geologic community as accurate depictions of the geology of the Santa Margarita area. The Dibblee map is included in the EIR as Figure 5.2-1. The Hart map is included in the EIR as Figure G-1 in Appendix G. Hopkins and Todd explain that the alluvial aquifer is recharged by rainfall, as well as by the flows of both Santa Margarita and Yerba Buena Creeks. The alluvial aquifer is described as relatively flat, tilted gently to the north, and shallow, (approximately 50 feet thick) but of high permeability. As shown on the geologic map, and on Figures ES-3 and 2-3, well #4 is located in the alluvial aquifer where underground flows generated by Santa Margarita Creek watershed join the wider floodplain generally associated with Yerba Buena Creek. Well #4 is located 475 feet from the surface flow of Santa Margarita



Creek, and 1,970 feet from the surface flow of Yerba Buena Creek. According to Plate 3 in the Hopkins Report, well #4 is located in the Santa Margarita Creek Watershed. Although though the alluvium is recharged by both streams, the single well tapping the alluvium (well #4) is positioned to efficiently pump the larger groundwater originating in the Santa Margarita Creek watershed. Response to comment 5 As required by CEQA the EIR focuses on the impacts of the proposed project; alternatives are developed to and analyzed to identify ways in which significant effects could be lessened or avoided by implementing a feasible alternative to the project:

(b) Purpose. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. 15126.6(b)

As documented in the EIR, because the proposed project, with mitigation in the form of a water conservation program, has no significant unavoidable impacts, the emphasis on alternatives is appropriately lessened. That is to say, the EIR does not include a highly detailed analysis of the suggested alternatives because 1) they are not the proposed project, 2) there are no significant impacts that could be lessened by these alternatives, and 3) both suggested alternatives may not be feasible. The state CEQA guidelines provide information on the feasibility of alternatives in section 15126.6(f):

(f) Rule of reason. The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project. The range of feasible alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision making. (15126.6(f) Feasibility. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are 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). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. 15126.6(f)(1)

Location of a new well on privately owned agricultural land to the west of the community appears to be inconsistent with the County’ own General Plan (see the discussion of Agricultural Policy 11 on page 5.9-6 of this EIR). Further, in as much as groundwater is the property of the overlying landowner, the landowner’s consent would be required to locate a well outside of the boundaries of CSA 23. While it has been mentioned that the County has the ability to condemn private property for public use, that authority requires



a finding of necessity. The finding of necessity requires careful consideration of alternatives; this EIR documents that alternatives to the taking of private property appear feasible. With respect to the feasibility of a new well located on school property, this alternative is evaluated as Groundwater Option A throughout the EIR, to the degree required by CEQA as discussed above. See also the discussion in Section 5.1 section 5.1.4.4. Response to comment 6 We agree that it will be important to establish agreements with partner agencies that are fully enforceable during drought periods. However, it must be noted that the partner agency, if different from the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District or Central Coast Water Authority (Santa Barbara County), has no control over deliveries through the State Water project. Water deliveries to the upstream end of the Coastal Branch pipeline are controlled by the State Department of Water Resources; the Coastal Branch pipeline connecting to Santa Margarita is jointly owned by the two districts listed above, and operated by the Central Coast Water Authority. The potential partner(s) do not have the ability to control water flow to Santa Margarita under this proposed program. Response to comment 7 Section 5.1 of this EIR (pages 5.1-1 through 5.1-3) lists 21 separate technical groundwater information sources prepared by at least 9 different technical experts between 1964 and 2006; not less that 9 of these sources represent comprehensive analyses that are directly applicable to understanding the regional aquifers in and around Santa Margarita. Response to comment 8 This comment represents the commenter’s opinion without reference to the information contained in the draft EIR or its supporting documents and is duly noted. Although when taken in the context of other comments from the same individual it is understood to be expressed in light of all of the evidence and information presented in the EIR; however, the County’s technical and professional staff have reached a different conclusion which is expressed as the proposed project. Response to comment 9 Similar to the response to comment #8 above, it is understood that different individuals may come to different conclusions when reviewing the same information in the EIR. The EIR conclusion that the biological impacts of additional wells that are utilized during drought periods is based on a review of the technical information that describes the relationship between groundwater levels and surface flow in area streams, as well as on the comments from resource agencies, primarily the National Marine Fisheries Service.



Response to comment 10 The statements in this EIR regarding the inability of well #3 to provide for all of the community’s water needs is specific to the inevitable drought periods that the proposed project is meant to respond to. The referenced memo (Santa Margarita CSA 23 Supplemental Water Supply Options Comparison of Alternatives, C. Ferrara 2001), on page 4 notes that:

“In March of this year [2001], the main well [well #4] was taken off-line due to a damaged pump column and it remained off-line until the middle of April. During that time, deep Well #3 met all of CSA 23’s water needs. . . This supports prior estimates of yield from this well (80 AFY).”

The same memo goes on to say, also on page 4, that:

The Dept. of Health Services has gone on record that they are skeptical regarding the success of drilling yet another well for the community, so much so that they may not support the use of low-interest State monies for drilling a new well. County staff, too, has concerns about spending additional community money on another well. Well #3 fell short of expectations after significant investment of money.”

At the same time, the 2001 Ferrara memo concludes that an additional deep well within the service area ranked high on the list of alternatives, but with a potential fatal flaw in the category of Reliability/Yield. The option of drilling a new well in the alluvium was dropped from the analysis due to water rights concerns. The community’s total reliance on well #3 from approximately March 6 to April 25, 2001 illustrates the change in demand during the different seasons, variability in the groundwater supply from wet to dry climate cycles, and the long-term capability of a well compared to shorter term use. Water use in Santa Margarita drops during the winter months, and rises through the summer. The March-April period typically consumes 18 acre feet of water, which is about 12% of average annual use (Exhibit 2-2 of this EIR and Santa Margarita California (CSA 23) 2010 Water Supply Reliability Report, appendix A to this EIR, table at the bottom of page 3). The average annual rainfall at the UNOCAL station gage is 22 inches, based on the nearly 100 year record. In the ten years preceding the spring of 2001 when well #3 was used exclusively, the average annual rainfall was 26.88 inches, 18% above normal. Rainfall during March and April of 2001 totaled 9.46 inches, 35% of the ten year annual average and 33% of the total rainfall for the 2000/2001 water year (Section 5.1 of this EIR and appendices B-1 and B2). By any account, the period during which well #4 was shut down and well 3# was used exclusively was a wet spring, in a wet year, following a wet decade, and occurred during a low water use season. The intent of the proposed project is to ensure a reliable water supply during the opposite scenario, such as occurred during the 1987-1992 drought. Response to comment 11 Well #4 is approximately 50 feet from wells #1 and #2 and is drilled into the same alluvial formation. According to well construction information prepared by the Department of Public Works and submitted with this comment letter, well #1 was drilled



to a depth of 49 feet; a perforated casing was installed for the length of the well. Well #4 was drilled in 1997 to a depth of 70 feet, and screened from 29 feet to 49 feet. The pump was placed below the 49 foot level. (See also the information contained in the Todd Report at page 11.) Based on this information, all three wells (1, 2, & 4) pump from the same effective maximum groundwater depth; 49 feet. The existence of a new well, adjacent to those existing in 1987-1992, does not change the characteristics of the surrounding aquifer, and does not influence the availability of groundwater at this location. Response to comment 12 The referenced memo “Aquifer Test Report, Santa Margarita Ranch ConocoPhillips Santa Margarita Pipeline RM&R Site No. 3475, Terra Pacific Group, January 7, 2010” (on file with the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works) was prepared to assess the potential impact of oil contamination from pumping a well on the Santa Margarita Ranch. The memo appears to confirm the information contained in the previous technical reports referenced in the response to comment #7 above. The memo, like the technical information used in preparing this EIR, focuses on groundwater. No information contradicting the conclusions of any of the previous reports or of this EIR was noted in the referenced memo. Response to comment 13 See response to comment #3 above. Response to comment 14 The project includes this component: “CSA 23 will, in consideration for water obtained from Program Participants, permanently surrender to the Program Participants an amount equal to 10% of the water it obtains from the Program Participants”. The 10% is intended to act as compensation for program partner’s agreement to participate with CSA 23. The 10% factor is felt to be a fair and appropriate amount and was determined by experienced and knowledgeable managers within the Department of Public Works. If, through negotiations with potential partners this, or any other component of the project description changes, additional environmental review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines may be required, depending on the potential environmental effects that could result from the change. Response to comment 15 The partner agency(s) will not be supplying water to CSA 23. All drought reliability water would be supplied by the State Water Project (see also the response to comment #6 above). With respect to the reliability of the State Water Project, see section 2.7 of this EIR. As shown in Exhibit 2-3 of this EIR, San Luis Obispo County State Water Contractors hold allocations of 4,830 acre feet and drought buffer allocations of 4,897 acre feet. The County Flood Control District has 9,727 acre feet of unallocated water. In practical terms, this means that all State Water Contractors in San Luis Obispo County will receive 100% of their water even when State deliveries fall as low as 20%.



Ultimately, however, the goal of the project is to provide a diversified water supply to provide a more reliable supply during drought. While this project, and others like it, can provide communities insurance against insufficient water supply, no program can absolutely guarantee that there will always be water available to carry on a normal lifestyle in periods of prolonged drought. Response to comment 16 The drought planning scenario, or “problem”, that this project is intended to address is fully described in Appendix A of this EIR: that is, a drought with similar intensity as what occurred from 1987 to 1992. We are aware that the drought was interrupted by a rainfall event in 1991 that likely prevented the imposition of extreme water conservation measures necessary to avoid a complete loss of water for the community. Well # 4 was constructed in 1997, after the drought, but in fact simply replaced wells #1 and #2, in close proximity to both, in order to address construction issues with the older wells (see also the response to comment # 11 above). Consequently, no additional water supply is accessed by well #4. Well #3 was completed in 1991 in the midst of the drought, but not utilized until 1993 due to water quality issues. As noted in comment #10 above and its response, well #3 did supply all of the community’s needs during a wet period. During that period (March-April 2001) the well supplied water a rate of that translates to 80 acre feet per year, average safe annual yield (according to the 2001 Ferrara memo). During a drought period, and with reductions in supply from well #4 similar in nature to what wells #1 and #2 experienced in 1987-1992, water supplied by the only other well in the community would not be sufficient without either a “miracle March” as the 1991 event was termed, or without imposition of extreme water conservation measures. The risk that the community would be without sufficient water is considered unacceptably high by the Department of Public Works. It should be noted that “extreme water conservation measures” are those that would be expected to substantially intrude into people’s daily lives. Response to comment 17 See response to comment #2 above. Response to comment 18 See the response to comment #5 above. Response to comment 19 Section 5.6 of this EIR contains a complete analysis of the Hazards and Hazardous materials associated with the proposed project. As noted in that Section, CSA 23 uses sodium hypochlorite while the State Water Project uses chloramines for disinfection. Both are effective disinfectants that pose a level of impact if released to the environment from a spill. As documented in section 5.6, there is no significant increase in risk from the use of State Water in the CSA 23 distribution system.



Response to comment 20 See the response to comment #19 above. Response to comment 21 Section 7.0 of this EIR contains a full description and analysis of the growth inducing potential of the project. Response to comment 22 This concerns the impacts to the revenue stream of CSA 23 as a result of reduced water use compelled by water conservation programs. The focus of the EIR is to provide information about the environmental consequences of a proposed project. Funding issues are not part of that analysis. It is known that many water systems have raised their rates to replace lost revenue because some of the costs of maintaining a water system are not directly related to the amount of water pumped. This is a common scenario in many communities. However, to avoid conservation programs because they do not save the consumer money may not be a valid reason to avoid this approach. Response to comment 23 CEQA requires the summary section of an EIR to list areas of controversy known to the lead agency. At the time of the writing of the draft EIR the only known area of controversy was growth inducement, as it has been at the forefront of community water discussions for many years. Others areas of controversy may include those listed in the comment; however, the extended comment period for this EIR elicited only six comment letters; one or more of the issued listed in this comment were identified in only three. Whether controversial or not, all of the comments are included in and responded to in this EIR. Response to comment 24 See the response to comment #A above. Response to comment 25 See the responses to comments #A and #5 above. Response to comment 26 County staff’s interpretation of the current desires of the community with respect to water supply since the year 2000 is based on attendance at numerous public meetings and forums, response to various reports and proposals, and by listening to various individual community members. At this point in the process, the “focus” is to develop a project and accompanying EIR for the community’s consideration. The community, through their elected representatives and/or an assessment vote, may or may not decide to move forward with the project in its proposed form. The purpose of the EIR is



to provide environmental impact information so that the community and decision makers can make informed decisions. Response to comment 27 See the response to comment # 16 above. Response to comment 28 Comment noted. Occasional typographical errors that do not affect the meaning of the document may occur as a result of the writer’s efforts to reduce costs to the community by limiting detailed review of successive drafts. Response to comment 29 See the response to comment #2 above. Also note that the school well and well #3 are located approximately 1,500 feet apart. The Hopkins report describes the Santa Margarita Formation as having a low permeability, meaning a relatively low rate at which water moves through it. Therefore, a traditional draw down test would likely not show any interference for a very substantial period of time. Of more relevance, and potential concern, is shown in Plate 9 of the Hopkins report. Five of the six bedrock wells illustrated show a steady decline in the static well level as pump tests progressed. This is clear indication that the rate at which these wells can supply water over longer time periods is limited. Response to comment 30 See the response to comment #5 Response to comment 31 See the response to comment #3 Response to comment 32 Section 5.12, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, contains the analysis of potential visual impacts and concludes that the long-term visual impacts are not significant because any new above ground structures and fences would be located in close proximity to existing site features, in an area with similar type development. Response to comment 33 See the response to comment #16 above. Response to comment 34 See the response to comment #16 above.



Response to comment 35 This comment is correct, however, it should be clarified that well #4 taps a traditional aquifer composed of layers of alluvial material where water is contained in the spaces between rocks and sand particles. Well #3 taps the Santa Margarita Formation, a bedrock formation composed of sandstone where water is contained in fractures and in the pores within the sandstone itself Response to comment 36 The Todd report, on page 11 at paragraph 2, describes the geologic conditions encountered when well #4 was drilled in 1996; the well, at a depth of 49 feet encountered shale and blue sandstone. Above the shale lies “a coarse-grained sand and gravel aquifer” from which the well produces water. Section 2.5 of the Santa Margarita Ranch Environmental Constraints and Opportunities Analysis (Envicom July 1993 and included a appendix G of this EIR), contains geologic cross sections of the Santa Margarita area (Figure W-2), followed by a description of the various hydrogeologic units that underlie the community. The shale encountered below well #4 is the Monterey Formation, which can be seen underlying the alluvial aquifer in cross section D-D in Figure W-2. The Monterey Formation is described on page 2-100:

The Monterey formation is a well-bedded sequence of shale, mudstone, sandstone, diatomite, and tuff. The Monterey formation occurs at the surface west of the Rinconada fault and in a central synclinal belt along the Nacimiento fault zone. The unit also occurs at depth under the valley area. Information concerning the hydrologic characteristics of this unit is lacking, however, because of its fine-grained nature, it is probably not a favorable prospect for groundwater development.”

This is the source of the referenced discussion on page 2-1 of the EIR. Response to comment 37 See the response to comment #11 above. Response to comment 38 See the response to comments #10 and #35 above. Response to comment 39 See the response to comment #10 above. Response to comment 40 See the response to comment #10 above.



Response to comment 41 The proposed project addresses drought reliability for the community of Santa Margarita. If additional proposals to utilize State Water or any other source to address other issues are developed, those projects would also require environmental review. Response to comment 42 The purpose of the EIR is to provide information about the environmental effects of the proposed project; whether or not the project meets state water rights requirements is not an environmental issue. In as much as well #3 cannot support the community’s water needs during a prolonged drought period, it could be concluded that the current system does not comply with Section 64554c. (Historically, the highest use period is in August and requires 30 acre feet of water; operationally well #3 cannot supply that quantity.) At the same time, implementation of the proposed project would mitigate the concerns that are embodied in Section 64554c. The issue of water rights with respect to the existing well #4 is not impacted by a connection to State Water as proposed by the project. Response to comment 43 See the response to comment #10 above. Response to comment 44 See the response to comments #10, #11, and #16 above. Response to comment 45 This comment represents the commenter’s opinion without reference to the information contained in the draft EIR or its supporting documents and is duly noted. Although when taken in the context of other comments from the same individual it is understood to be expressed in light of all of the evidence and information presented in the EIR; however, the County’s technical and professional staff have reached a different conclusion which is expressed as the proposed project. Response to comment 46 The EIR provides information about the reliability of the State Water Project precisely so that the reader can understand the context in which the proposed project would be implemented. The consequences of a statewide drought in which local and State Water supplies are insufficient to supply the community are clear and obvious: a declaration of a water supply emergency and the implementation of any available measures to mitigate the health and safety impacts to the community. As described in the EIR, the intent of the project is to reduce the potential for such occurrences. Also see the response to comment #5 above.



Response to comment 47 The comment is incorrect. The costs to the community of drought reliability water and supplemental water are described on page 9 of Appendix A of this EIR (County of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Santa Margarita California (CSA23) 2010 Water Supply Reliability Report). 80 acre feet of supplemental water would cost an estimated $650,000 in one-time capital expenses with annual costs of $110,000. 80 acre feet of drought reliability water would cost an estimated $608,500 in one-time capital expenses with annual costs of $7,110. The monthly equivalent cost to property owners is $24 for supplemental water and less than $5 for drought reliability water. The key element making the difference is that 80 acre feet of drought reliability water can be had for the cost of 5 acre feet annually, while 80 acre feet of supplemental water requires paying for 80 acre feet annually. Response to comment 48 This comment reflects the commenter’s opinion that that a different and more inclusive project should be proposed. However, as required by CEQA the EIR focuses on the impacts of the proposed project. Appendix A of this EIR (County of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Santa Margarita California (CSA23) 2010 Water Supply Reliability Report), describes how and why the project objectives were developed. Response to comment 49 See the response to comments # A and #48 above. Response to comment 50 See the response to comment #A above; the lead agency is required by law to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of its own projects. Response to comment 51 The EIR does not deem any of the Nacimiento Water Project Alternatives as technically infeasible. However, the ultimate cost of a project is an important consideration. Response to comment 52 See the response to comment #4. Response to comment 53 See the response to comment #10 Response to comment 54



Plate 3 in the Hopkins Report (Included as Appendix B-1 in this EIR) provides a map of the watersheds in the Santa Margarita area. The stream referenced in this comment is in the Yerba Buena Creek Watershed. Response to comment 55 See the response to comment #4 Response to comment 56 The Todd Report (included as Appendix B-2 in this EIR), contains a discussion of groundwater quality beginning on page 12 and continuing to page 14. The discussion notes that “It is noteworthy that approximately eighty percent of the town (and wastewater discharge) is located in the Yerba Buena drainage, while wells 1, 2, and 4 are located in the Santa Margarita drainage.” Under the discussion of Methylene blue active substances (MBAS) wells 1 and 2 each detected MBAS 3 times (out of 56 samples); “this suggest a minor component of septic effluent impact”. While all samples for nitrogen were within drinking water standards, the detection of nitrite as NO3 “suggests some effect of wastewater disposal”. “Coliform data is suggestive, but not conclusive, that there could be small impacts on all wells from nearby waste disposal practices.” Response to comment 57 From a technical standpoint placing more wells in the Santa Margarita drainage could be beneficial in managing the basin, but given the totality of the evidence contained in all of the groundwater reports would not be an effective means of ensuring drought reliability, which is the focus of the proposed project, which leads to the other recommendations in the same report:

Operating Recommendation 7: It would also be prudent to continue to negotiate with imported water agencies to supplement existing as well as potential resources, particularly during extreme drought (i.e., Water years 1991 and 1992) or during maximum month demands.

The proposed drought reliability project is in response to Operating Recommendation 7, recognizing that while further groundwater development may provide various benefits to the community, drought periods require water from outside the local hydrogeologic system to provide an acceptable measure of public health and safety. It should also be noted that the CSA 23 does not have, and likely could not gain, the right to drill new wells outside the boundary of the district, an issue not within the scope of the Todd report. Response to comment 58 See the response to comment #57 above.



Response to comment 59 The referenced memo “Aquifer Test Report, Santa Margarita Ranch ConocoPhillips Santa Margarita Pipeline RM&R Site No. 3475, Terra Pacific Group, January 7, 2010” (now on file with the San Luis Obispo County Department of Public Works) was prepared to assess the potential impact on oil contamination from the pumping a well on the Santa Margarita Ranch. The referenced report, on page 17 paragraph 4 states:

“Groundwater in the vicinity of SMR Well No.1 flows in a northwest direction. Based on water level measurements taken prior to the start of the constant-rate pumping test in observation wells P-1B and P-2B, the calculated gradient in the alluvial aquifer is approximately 0.017.”

This statement is also supported by aquifer thickness and elevation information presented beginning on page 3 of the report. Note also that the majority of the petroleum product that leaked from the ConocoPhillips pipelines over the years consisted of heavy San Joaquin crude, which requires heating or dilution to flow. Historically the oil was heated at pumping stations along the pipeline from Lost Hills to Avila. Leaked oil would cool after it left the pipeline and congeal to the thickness of asphalt ion the surrounding soil. Volatile compounds would evaporate out of the soil column, leaving the now even thicker product behind. This may account for the lack of oil detected in down gradient water wells. Response to comment 60 Section 5.1.4.2 of this EIR contains a full discussion of the impacts of the water conservation alternative and describes how it is that it would have greater environmental impacts if implemented without an additional outside water source to supplement the community’s drought period water needs. Response to comment 61 It should be noted that well #3 requires filtration for iron and manganese; the well also contain arsenic but at levels below current regulatory thresholds. Water quality in a new well in the same formation would be expected to be similar. Response to comment 62 See the response to comment #2 above. Response to comment 63 See the response to comments #2, #10 and #29 above. Response to comment 64 See the response to comment #4 above.



Response to comment 65 See the response to comments #10 and #29 above. Response to comment 66 Previous statements regarding the impacts on aquifers and wells are documented in this EIR and supported by the technical appendices to this EIR, as well as by all referenced documents, including those attached to comments, as described in the responses to the comments above. Response to comment 67 See the response to comment #4 above Response to comment 68 See the response to comments #10 and #16 above. Response to comment 69 As shown in Exhibit 2-3 of this EIR, San Luis Obispo County State Water Contractors hold allocations of 4,830 acre feet and drought buffer allocations of 4,897 acre feet. The County Flood Control District has 9,727 acre feet of unallocated water. In practical terms, this means that all State Water Contractors in San Luis Obispo County will receive 100% of their water even when State deliveries fall as low as 20%. Response to comment 70 Graywater systems can be an important component of on-going water conservation efforts. Readers should be aware that State regulations regarding graywater systems have recently changed, allowing homeowners to install simple systems without needing to go through a complicated permitting process. Contact your local building department for more information. Response to comment 71 The project would be implemented during periods of extreme drought; no water would be imported into Santa Margarita during normal or wet periods. Therefore, the project will have no impact on flooding. Response to comment 72 Agricultural irrigation in the area to the west of Santa Margarita has been well documented over time. While current practices may have curtailed irrigation, it should be noted that the “Aquifer Test Report, Santa Margarita Ranch ConocoPhillips Santa Margarita Pipeline RM&R Site No. 3475, Terra Pacific Group, January 7, 2010” referenced in previous comments was prepared in 2010 to support plans to use an



existing water supply well located north of Santa Margarita for irrigation and domestic water supply, the construction of a new reservoir, and the installation of two new irrigation wells and a new domestic well. All are located in the area west and north of Santa Margarita, and south of the ConocoPhillips pipeline. Response to comment 73 See the response to comments #8 and #9 above. Response to comment 74 See the response to comment #4 above. Response to comment 75 See the response to comment #4 above. Response to comment 76 See the response to comments #12 and #59 above.



Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Santa ...

Documents

Transcript of Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Santa ...