S E C T I O N S I X PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND COSTS

SECTION SIX CONTENTS

6.1 ProjectPrioritization 6-2

6.2 PrioritizationMatrix 6-8

6.3 ProjectList 6-9

6.4 PermitsandApprovals 6-13

6.5 Administration 6-15

6.6 TrailImplementation 6-15

6.7 TrailImplementationoverJurisdictionalBoundaries 6-16

6.8 ÀLaCarteTrailDevelopment 6-16

This section consists of matrices and tables designed to provide an objective process for the MBSST Network funding and development priorities. It describes the process by which points were assigned to each segment and includes a ranking matrix that tabulates the points earned by each segment. This information is then translated into a priority matrix that assigns each segment a priority. Funding sources, administration, and implementation strategies are also included.

6 - 2 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

6.1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATIONThefollowinginformationandtablesareprovidedtoaidtheSantaCruzCountyRegionalTransportationCommission(RTC)indeterminingwhetherornotaprojectisreadyforfurtherdevelopmentandimplementation.ThegoalofTables6.1through6.9istoobjectivelyprioritizetheorderinwhichtheMontereyBaySanctuaryScenicTrailNetwork(MBSSTNetwork)segmentscouldbedeveloped.Actualimplementationmaybedifferentduetonewfundingopportunitiesorrestrictions,communitypriorities,regionaltransportationplangoals,andneedsforgapclosureswithinthetrailsystemitselfwhichmaychangeovertime.Prioritizationmayalsobeimpactedbyimplementingentities’interestsinbringingtheprojecttofruition.However,theRTCintendstousethisprioritizationmechanismasageneralguidelinebywhichtofundandimplementeachsegment.Tables6.2through6.9evaluateaseriesofcriteriadevelopedtoprioritizesegmentsbasedonapointsystem.Thesegmentsthatreceivethemostpointsareonesthatservealargenumberofactivitycenters,haveminimalphysicalconstraints,andfillinMBSSTNetworkgaps.Theseprioritizationcategoriesinclude:

1. ProximitytoActivityCenters-5pointspossible2. PopulationDensity-5pointspossible3. CoastalAccessConnectivity-5pointspossible4. TrailSegmentCost-5pointspossible5. TrailSegmentLength-5pointspossible6. MinimalorNoBridgeCrossings-5pointspossible7. LimitedRight-Of-WayConstraints-5pointspossible8. GapClosures(andconnectionstoexistingandplannednon-motorizedfacilities)-5pointspossible9. PublicInput-5pointspossible

ThesetablesworkinconcertwithTable6.10whichappliestheprioritizationcategoriestoeachsegment.Thereareatotalofforty-five(45)possiblepointsbasedonthenine(9)categoriesabove.

Actual implementation may be different

due to new funding opportunities or

restrictions, community priorities, regional

transportation plan goals, and needs for

gap closures within the trail system itself which

may change over time.

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 3

6.1.1 EVALUATION CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGY

PROXIMITY TO ACTIVITY CENTERS - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEThiscategoryrepresentsthenumberoflocalandregionalactivitycenterswithin1/4-mile,1/2-mile,and1-mileoftheproposedtrailalignment.Activitycentersincludedestinationssuchaseducationalfacilities,employmentandretail/commercialcenters,parks,beaches,andtouristattractions.

Theactivitycenterswerecountedpertrailsegmentandassignedacorrespondingpointtotal.Theywerealsoassignedadistancemultiplierbasedonthedistancesmentionedabove,ascenterslocatedclosertotheproposedtrailalignmenthaveahighervaluetotrailusers.

TheresultingActivityCenterTypePerSegmentmatrixisshowninTable3.1.ThemethodologyforincludingtheactivitycenterdatainTable6.1below.

TABLE 6.1 - Proximity to Activity Centers Methodology and Points

SegmentDistance From Trail Multiplier Number of

Activity Centers Points1/4 mile 1/2 mile 1 mile

PerSegment 1.5 1 0.5

0-10 1

10.5-20 2

20.5-30 3

30.5-40 4

40.5-50 5

6 - 4 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

POPULATION DENSITY - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEThiscategoryrepresentsatrailsegment’sutilityasitrelatestonumbersofpotentiallocalizedusers.TheanalysisisbasedonCensus2010Blockpopulationdatapolygonswithinorintersectinga1/2-milebufferregionforeachsegment.Thepotentialbenefiteachtrailsegmentprovides,asitrelatestopopulationdensity,isreflectedinthefollowingpointscale:

TABLE 6.2 - Population Density Methodology

Description Points

Segmentareapopulationgreaterthan20,000 5

Segmentareapopulationof15,001to20,000 4

Segmentareapopulationof10,001to15,000 3

Segmentareapopulationof5,001to10,000 2

Segmentareapopulationof0to5,000 1

COASTAL ACCESS CONNECTIVITY - 5 POINTS POSSIBLETheCoastalRailTrailcomprisesmostoftheproposedtrailalignment.ItispartofthelargerMBSSTNetworkthroughSantaCruzCountyanditsconnectivitytocoastalaccessandlocalbeachesisvitallyimportant.Thiscategoryassignshighervaluewherethereismoreconnectivitytothesecoastalresourcesandbreaksdownasfollows:

TABLE 6.3 - Coastal Access Connectivity Methodology

Description Points

Trailrunsadjacenttobeach/shoreline/coastalbluffs 5

Trailhasthree(3)ormoredirectcoastalconnections 3

Trailhasone(1)ortwo(2)directcoastalconnections 1

Traildoesnotdirectlyconnecttoacoastalaccesspoint 0

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 5

TRAIL SEGMENT COST - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEThecostofatrailsegmentprojectdirectlyinfluencestheabilitytoimplementitandhowlimitedfundingshouldbeprioritized.Eachprojectwasratedonascaleof1to5pointsforestimatedcostofimplementationasshowninTable6.4below.

TABLE 6.4 - Trail Segment Cost Methodology

Estimated Segment Cost Points

$0-$1,000,000 5

$1,000,000-$2,500,000 4

$2,500,000-$5,000,000 3

$5,000,000-$7,500,000 2

$7,500,000+ 1

SEGMENT LENGTH - 5 POINTS POSSIBLETrailsegmentlengthrepresentsthephysicalamountoftrailthatwillbeavailableforpublicuseperprojectsegment.LongertrailsegmentsreceiveahigherpointtotalandtheassignedvaluesarerepresentedinTable6.5below.

TABLE 6.5 - Trail Segment Length Methodology

Segment Length in Miles Points

0.00-1.00Miles 1

1.01-2.00Miles 2

2.01-3.00Miles 3

3.01-4.00Miles 4

4.01-5.00+Miles 5

6 - 6 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

MINIMAL OR NO BRIDGE CROSSINGS - 5 POINTS POSSIBLECrossinganexistingstreamorhighwayviaanewormodifiedbridgeisasignificantphysicalconstraintintermsofconstructioncost,time,andpermitting.Thereareseverallocationswheretheproposedtrailalignmentwillneedtoutilizeexistingbridgesortrestlestoovercomeexistingobstacles.Thesecrossingswillneedtobemodifiedorbuilttoaccommodatetheproposedtrail.Thecorrespondingcostandchallengesassociatedwiththeseeffortsaresignificant,andthereforealowernumberofpointsareawardedasthenumberofcrossingsincreases.Thisisreflectedinthefollowingpointscale:

TABLE 6.6 - Minimal or No Bridge Crossings Methodology

Description Points

Proposedtrailalignmentencountersnobridgecrossings 5

Proposedtrailalignmentencountersone(1)bridgecrossing 3

Proposedtrailalignmentencounterstwo(2)ormorebridgecrossings 1

LIMITED RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) CONSTRAINTS - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEThiscategoryrepresentsthesignificanceofphysicalandmonetaryconstraintsinvolvedinconstructingtheproposedtrailalignmentthroughnarrowright-of-wayareas.TheCoastalRailTrailisthepreferredalignment;however,aconstrainedrailroadright-of-wayareawillnecessitaterealigningtherailroadtrackstoaccommodatetheproposedtrail,orreroutingthetrailaroundtheconstrainedright-of-wayareaalongexistingstreets.

IntheNorthernReach,wheretheproposedtrailalignmentcontinuesnorthbeyondtherailroadright-of-way,theCaltransright-of-wayalongHighway1canaccommodatetheproposedtrailwithoutsignificantconstraints.Thedifficultiesinvolvedwithconstrainedright-of-waysarerepresentedasfollows:

TABLE 6.7 - Limited Right-of-Way (ROW) Constraints Methodology

Description PointsProposedtrailalignmentisinCaltransROWorexistingrailroadROWthatcanaccommodatethetrailwithoutaltering/movingtherailroadtracks

5

Requiresreroutingproposedtrailalignmentalongexistingstreets 3

Requiresobtaininganeasementforproposedtrailalignment 1

Requirespermittingandmoving/realigningrailroadtracks 0

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 7

GAP CLOSURES (AND CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING AND PLANNED NON-MOTORIZED FACILITIES) - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEThiscategoryevaluatesatrailsegment’sabilitytoconnecttoexistingtrailsystemsornetworks.Suchconnectionsprovidethevalue-addedbenefitofexpandingthecontinuityoftheoverallMBSSTNetwork,increasingconnectivitytodestinationareasandrecreationaluses,andpotentiallyincreasingpublicusageoftheexistingtrails.Thebenefitsofconnectingtoexistingtrailsarereflectedbythefollowingpointscale:

TABLE 6.8 - Gap Closures (and Connection to Non-Motorized Facilities) Methodology

Description Points

Trailconnectstothree(3)ormoreexistingnon-motorizedfacilities 5

Trailconnectstotwo(2)existingnon-motorizedfacilities 3

Trailconnectstoone(1)existingnon-motorizedfacility 1

Traildoesnotconnecttoanyexistingnon-motorizedfacility 0

PUBLIC INPUT - 5 POINTS POSSIBLEPublicinputandparticipationisanimportantpartoftheprioritizationprocess.Communitymembersinvolvedatthepublicworkshopsandotheroutreacheffortsrepresentpotentialtrailusersandconcernedresidents.Asaresultoftheoutreachprocess,Table6.9wasdevelopedtorepresentcommunitypreferences.Table6.10includesthecumulativesumofeachparticipatingcommunitymember’stoptwopreferences.Pointsreflectingtheirprioritiesareassignedtoproposedtrailsegmentsbythefollowingpointscale:

TABLE 6.9 - Public Input Methodology

Description Points

Segmentwasidentifiedasoneofthetop3preferredsegments 5

Segmentwasrankedasthe4thor5thinpriority 4

Segmentwasrankedasthe6ththrough10thinpriority 3

Segmentwasrankedasthe11ththrough15thinpriority 2

Segmentwasrankedasthe16ththrough20thinpriority 1

A gap closure completes a trail

segment to an activity center or between two

existing trail facilities.

Public input and participation is an

important part of the prioritization process.

6 - 8 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

TABLE 6.10 - Project Prioritization Matrix

TABLE 6.11 - Segment Priority Ranking

6.2 PRIORITIZATION MATRIX6.2.1 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION

Table6.10showsthescoringguideforeachtrailsegmentbasedontabulatingtheapplicablepointsfromTables6.1to6.9.Eachsegmentcanearnapossible45points.Segmentswiththehighestpointtotalswithintheirreachareconsideredtobethemostlikelytobefundedintheearlystagesoftraildevelopment.AdetailedanalysisoftheprojectprioritylistisdescribedinSection6.3.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20SEGMENT LENGTH (IN MILES)* 1.06 4.77 1.11 3.64 10.55 1.49 3.10 0.77 1.73 1.50 3.20 1.14 0.85 1.17 1.37 2.66 4.00 4.01 0.47 0.74SEGMENT COST (IN MILLIONS) 0.11$ 0.31$ 2.55$ 2.69$ 15.01$ 3.11$ 11.22$ 10.31$ 11.91$ 9.71$ 8.87$ 10.83$ 3.31$ 2.08$ 4.74$ 3.61$ 19.96$ 3.01$ 0.38$ 3.01$

Activity Centers 2 2 1 1 1 3 4 5 5 5 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1Population Density 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 4 5 5 3 2 2 1 1 1 3 3 2Coastal Access Connectivity 5 3 3 1 5 3 3 5 3 1 5 1 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0Segment Cost 5 5 3 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 3 3 1 3 5 3Segment Length 2 5 2 4 5 2 4 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 3 4 5 1 1Minimal or No Bridge Crossings 5 5 3 5 5 5 3 3 1 3 1 1 3 5 1 5 1 5 5 3Limited ROW Constraints 0 0 1 3 5 5 5 3 5 0 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3Gap Closures 3 1 0 0 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 1 1 3 1 0 3 5 5Public Input 1 2 1 3 5 1 3 4 5 4 5 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 1 2Total Points (out of 45) 24 24 15 21 33 28 33 30 31 24 28 17 17 22 20 20 14 26 23 20Note: *Segment Length refers to total combined length of Coastal Rail Trail and Coastal Trail alignments.

TRAIL ALIGNMENT SEGMENT

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION MATRIXCATEGORY

(WITH POINT TOTALS)

6.2.2 SEGMENT PRIORITY RANKING

Table6.11utilizesdatafromthePrioritizationMatrixandranksthesegmentsbyoveralltrailandalsobyreach.Thisdataprovidescountywideandregionalguidanceastowhichsegmentsmaydevelopaheadofothersbasedonthepriorityanalysis.

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th

Trail Segment 7 5 9 8 6 11 18 10 1 2 19 14 4 20 16 15 13 12 3 17Total Points 33 33 31 30 28 28 26 24 24 24 23 22 21 20 20 20 17 17 15 14% of Total Possible Points (45) 73% 73% 69% 67% 62% 62% 58% 53% 53% 53% 51% 49% 47% 44% 44% 44% 38% 38% 33% 31%

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th

Trail Segment 5 1 2 4 3 7 9 8 6 11 10 14 13 12 18 19 20 16 15 17Total Points 33 24 24 21 15 33 31 30 28 28 24 22 17 17 26 23 20 20 20 14% of Total Possible Points (45) 73% 53% 53% 47% 33% 73% 69% 67% 62% 62% 53% 49% 38% 38% 58% 51% 44% 44% 44% 31%

SEGMENT COST (IN MILLIONS) 15.01$ 0.11$ 0.31$ 2.69$ 2.55$ 11.22$ 11.91$ 10.31$ 8.87$ 3.11$ 9.71$ 2.08$ 3.31$ 10.83$ 3.01$ 0.38$ 3.01$ 3.61$ 4.74$ 19.96$

SEGMENT PRIORITY RANKING

ITEMPRIORITY RANKING*: OVERALL TRAIL

ITEMPRIORITY RANKING*: BY REACH

NORTHERN REACH CENTRAL REACH WATSONVILLE REACH

Note: *If two or more segments accumulate the same number of points, the segment with the least associated cost is given a higher priority.

$20,657,456 71,354,320 34,712,304

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 9

6.3 PROJECT LIST6.3.1 NORTHERN REACH PROJECTS

TheNorthernReachincludesSegments1-5.Table6.12prioritizesthesegmentsbythenumberofpointstheyreceived.Thesegmentsthatreceivedthemostnumberofpointsareconsideredthemostfeasibleforimplementingwithinashorttimeframe.ThisincludesSegments5,1,and2asthetopthreesegments.

ThesesegmentsprovidegapclosurestoexistingMBSSTsegments,provideaccesstonumerousactivitycenters,connecttothecoastaledgeandbeaches,andprovideconnectivitytootherexistinglocalandregionalbikewayandpedestrianfacilities.Segment5isparticularlyinagoodpositionforimplementationasitfallswithintherailroadright-of-waycorridorwithminimalprivatelandinterferenceorsignificantenvironmentalimpacts.Segments4and3mayrequireabitmoreleadtimetoresolvephysicaldesignconstraints,ROWconflicts,complexcoastalconnections,andotherbudgetarychallenges.However,thesesegmentsservetoclosethegapintheoveralltrailnetwork,whichwillhelpelevatetheirimportanceforfunding.

TABLE 6.12 - Northern Reach Projects

Points Segment Length Cost Document Reference Page

33 5-DavenportandWilderRanch 10.55miles $15,006,784 4-25to4-34

24 1-WaddellBluffs 1.06miles $107,120 4-5to4-8

24 2-GreyhoundRock/CalPolyBluffs 4.77miles $308,032 4-9to4-14

214-DavenportLanding/EndofRailroadTracks

3.64miles $2,685,424 4-21to4-24

153-UpperCoastDairiesatScottCreek

1.11miles $2,550,096 4-15to4-20

TOTALS 21.13 miles $20,657,456

6 - 1 0 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

6.3.2 CENTRAL REACH PROJECTS

TheCentralReachincludesSegments6-14.Table6.13prioritizesthesegmentsbythenumberofpointstheyreceived.Thesegmentsthatreceivedthemostnumberofpointsareconsideredthemostfeasibleforimplementingwithinashorttimeframe.ThisincludesSegments7,9,and8asthetopthreesegments.

ThesesegmentsprovidegapclosurestoexistingMBSSTsegments,provideaccesstonumerousactivitycenters,connecttothecoastaledgeandbeaches,andprovideconnectivitytootherexistinglocalandregionalbikewayandpedestrianfacilities.ThesesegmentsarelocatedinsomeofthemostdenselypopulatedareasoftheMBSSTNetworkandprovideidealstart/endpointsfromresidentialneighborhoods.Someofthesegmentsthatreceivedalowernumberofpointsdidsoduetoinfluencessuchas:highcostofconstruction,difficultornumerousrailcrossings,narrowright-of-way,minimalaccesstogreaterpopulation,andotherlimitingfactors.However,thesesegmentsservetoclosethegapintheoveralltrailnetwork,whichwillhelpelevatetheirimportanceforfunding.

TABLE 6.13 - Central Reach Projects

Points Segment Length CostDocument Reference

Page33 7-CoastalSantaCruz 3.10miles $11,218,016 4-39to4-44

31 9-TwinLakes 1.73miles $11,914,384 4-51to4-56

308-SantaCruzBeachBoardwalk

0.77miles $10,314,240 4-45to4-50

286-WilderRanchTrailhead/ShafferRoad

1.49miles $3,114,224 4-35to4-38

28 11-Capitola-SeaCliff 3.20miles $8,868,336 4-61to4-66

24 10-LiveOak/JadeStPark 1.50miles $9,707,440 4-57to4-60

22 14-Seascape 1.17miles $2,079,872 4-79to4-82

1713-RioDelMar-HiddenBeach

0.85miles $3,306,112 4-73to4-78

17 12-AptosVillage 1.14miles $10,831,696 4-67to4-72

TOTALS 14.95 miles $71,354,320

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 1 1

6.3.3 WATSONVILLE REACH PROJECTS

TheWatsonvilleReachincludesSegments15-20.Table6.14prioritizesthesegmentsbythenumberofpointstheyreceived.Thesegmentsthatreceivedthemostnumberofpointsareconsideredthemostfeasibleforimplementingwithinashorttimeframe.ThisincludesSegments18,19,and20asthetopthreesegments.

ThesesegmentsprovidegapclosurestoexistingMBSSTsegments,provideaccesstonumerousactivitycenters,andprovideconnectivitytootherexistinglocalandregionalbikewayandpedestrianfacilities.ThesesegmentsarelocatedinsomeofthemostdenselypopulatedareasoftheWatsonvilleReachandprovideidealstart/endpointsfromresidentialneighborhoodsandthecityofWatsonville.Segments16and15mayrequireabitmoreleadtimetoresolvingphysicaldesignconstraints,ROWconflicts,bridgedesignandconstruction,andotherbudgetarychallenges.However,thesesegmentsservetoclosethegapintheoveralltrailnetwork,whichwillhelpelevatetheirimportanceforfunding.

TABLE 6.14 - Watsonville Reach Projects

Points Segment Length Cost Document Reference Page

2618-WatsonvilleSloughOpenSpaceTrails

4.01miles $3,010,720 4-99to4-104

2319-WalkerStreet,CityofWatsonville

0.47miles $381,280 4-105to4-108

20 20-PajaroRiver 0.74miles $3,009,136 4-109to4-112

20 16-EllicottSlough 2.66miles $3,613,600 4-89to4-92

20 15-ManresaStateBeach 1.37miles $4,735,680 4-83to4-88

14 17-HarkinsSlough 4.0miles $19,961,888 4-93to4-98

TOTALS 13.25 miles $34,712,304

6 - 1 2 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

Figure 6.1 Summary of cost by trail facility type

Trail facilities serve mobility and access

needs and encourage non-motorized active

transportation. CoastalRailTrail

$120,960,96830.3 miles

ConstructionCosts$75,601,230

Design,Engineering,Permitting,andConstructionManagement(60%ontopofConstruction)

$45,360,739

CoastalTrailSpurs$5,762,11218.4 miles

ConstructionCosts$3,601,320

Design,Engineering,Permitting,andConstructionManagement

$2,160,792

Amenities$6,005,390

PavedClassIFacilities$2,629,260

3.1 miles

On-RoadNetworkFacilities$681,06010.6 miles

StagingAreas$110,000

Trails$3,491,320

NaturalSurfaceTrail$181,0004.8 miles

24Bridges(23new,1retrofit)

$28,800,000

Crossings(76road,including1undercrossing)+(20rail,including1undercrossing)

$6,795,000

Trail$34,000,840

30.3 miles

COST ESTIMATE BREAKDOWNTOTAL: $126,724,080

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 1 3

6.4 PERMITS AND APPROVALSTypicallyeachsegmentorcombinationofsegmentsthatispursuedasaprojectwillinvolveobtainingseveralpermitsandagreements.Thissectionsummarizesthetypesofpermitsandthebasicprocessforeach.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT - LOCAL GOVERNMENT OR COASTAL COMMISSIONNearlyanykindofimprovement,evensigns,requiresaCoastalDevelopmentPermit(CDP).Signsandotherrudimentaryimprovementscanbeapprovedadministratively,buttheprojectscontainedintheMasterPlanaresignificantandwillrequireafullpermitandhearing.

WhileSantaCruzCountywillhandlethemajorityofCDPapplications,itisanticipatedthatCDPswillalsoberequiredfortheCitiesofSantaCruz,Capitola,andWatsonville.In“originaljurisdiction”wetlandareas,CDPapplicationswillbesubmitteddirectlytotheCoastalCommissionitself.TheseareasincludethemouthoftheSanLorenzoRiver,theWoodsLagoon(Harbor)area,SoquelCreekLagooninCapitola,andsixotherlocations.TheCoastalCommissionwillalsohearappealsofalocallyapprovedCDP.ThelegalstandardofreviewforthedelegatedjurisdictionareasincludestherespectiveLocalCoastalProgram(LCP)foreachofthelocalgovernments,inadditiontothepublicaccessandrecreationpoliciescontainedinChapter3oftheCaliforniaCoastalAct.

ThestandardofreviewforCDPsistheCoastalCommission-certifiedLCP,includingtheLCP’sLandUsePlanandimplementingordinances.CertainactionscontemplatedinthisMasterPlanwerenotanticipatedatthetimeoforiginalLCPcertification,e.g.,dualuseoftherailcorridor.TheseinstancesmaytriggertheneedforLCPamendmentbeforetheCDPapplicationcanbeconsidered.

ForqualifyingPublicWorksprojects,theCaliforniaCoastalActalsoprovidesanalternativedevelopmentreviewprocessthatdoesnotentailalocallyissuedCDP.ThisprocessrequirespriorCoastalCommissionapprovalofaPublicWorksPlan(PWP).AtWilderRanchStatePark,forexample,projectsidentifiedintheapprovedPWPdonotneedseparateapprovalasCDPs.Althoughonlyrarelyutilized,thePWPprocessisanavailableoptionforfuturestatepark,localparkagency,utilityagency,Caltrans,andlocalandregionaltransportationagencyprojectsthataresubjecttotheCaliforniaCoastalAct.

TheCoastalZoneManagementAct(CZMA),enactedin1972,isthecorrespondingfederallegislation.InaccordancewiththeCZMA,theCaliforniaCoastalActandthevariousLocalCoastalProgramscomprisethefederallydesignatedCaliforniaCoastalManagementProgram(CCMP).InadditiontoitsprimarydevelopmentreviewresponsibilitiesundertheCaliforniaCoastalAct,anongoingrolefortheCoastalCommissionistoreviewfederalagencyactionsforconsistencywiththeCCMP.

Appealsofcountyandcityactions,originaljurisdictionCDPs,requestsforapprovalofPWPs,LongRangeDevelopmentPlans(applicabletoUniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruzlands),federalconsistencymatters,andanysubmittedLCPamendmentrequestsareheardbytheCoastalCommissionatitsregularlyscheduledmeetings.

PERMIT AND APPROVAL TYPES

A. ApprovalbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionRailCrossingEngineeringSection;

B. Localjurisdictionadoption(includingSantaCruzCounty,MontereyCounty[forSegment20]andcitiesofSantaCruz,Capitola,andWatsonville);

C. CoastalDevelopmentPermit(s)fromSantaCruzCountyorCaliforniaCoastalCommission;

D. Section404Permit(s)fromtheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers;

E. Section1600Permit(s)fromtheCaliforniaDepartmentofFishandGameWildlife;

F. Section401WaterQualityCertificationfromtheRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard;

G. ApprovalbytheU.S.FishandWildlifeService;

H. ApprovalbytheCaliforniaPublicUtilitiesCommissionRailCrossingEngineeringSection;

I. CaltransEncroachmentPermit(s)and/orApprovalbyFederalRailroadAdministration.

J. MarineMammalProtectionActIncidentalHarassmentAuthorizationPermit

6 - 1 4 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE) PERMITASection404PermitapplicationtotheUSACEforplacementoffill,includingconsultationwiththeU.S.FishandWildlifeService,mayberequiredtosatisfytherequirementsofSection404(b)(1)oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA).

AJurisdictionalDelineationReport,orwetlanddelineation,ispartofthetechnicalstudiesrequiredinanylocationwherethereispotentialforwetlandstooccur.ThismapsandobtainsUSACEconcurrenceonjurisdictional“WatersoftheU.S.,”includingwetlands(ifpresent),and/or“WatersoftheState.”

STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (CDFW)ASection1602LakeorStreambedNotification/ApplicationforaStreambedAlterationAgreementwillneedtobesubmittedtoCDFWforanyworkthatmayimpactastreamorrelatedriparianhabitat.

CALTRANS ENCROACHMENT PERMIT - CALTRANS OR SANTA CRUZ COUNTYWheretheprojectinvolvesworkorpermanentimprovementswithinthestatehighwayright-of-wayorcountyroadright-of-way,anencroachmentpermitfromCaltransorthecountywillberequired.Thistypicallyrequiresamaintenanceagreementwitheitherapublicagencyoranon-profitorganizationtoensurethattheMBSSTNetworkfacilitiesinthehighwayright-of-waywillbeadequatelymaintained.

RAIL CROSSING - CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)CPUCstaffensurethatrailcrossingsaresafelydesigned,constructed,andmaintained,andCPUCauthorizationisrequiredpriortoconstructinganewrailcrossingormodifyinganexistingrailcrossing.Commissionauthorizationmayberequestedbyfilingaformalapplicationwithtypicalrequeststaking45daysto12monthsforapproval.Thereare101CPUCcrossingsalongCoastalRailTrail.

SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION - REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (RWQCB)ManyMBSSTNetworkprojectswillberequiredtoprepareaRWQCBCWASection401WaterQualityCertification(WQC)notification/applicationtothelocalRWQCB,whichmayincludeaStormWaterPollutionPreventionPlan(SWPPP).TheissuanceoftheWQCisnecessarypriortotheissuanceofanUSACECWASection404(b)(1)permit.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA)Whenfederalfundsareusedfortrailimplementation,theNOAAmaybeinvolvedwithreviewingandcommentingonenvironmentaldocumentationforprojectseffectingmarinemammals.ThismayleadtoprojectmitigationsandpossiblyrequireaMarineMammalProtectionActIncidentalHarassmentAuthorization(MMPAIHA)permit.

As owner of the Coastal Rail Trail

corridor, the RTC will continue to provide regional policy and

oversight for the MBSST Network.

P R O J E C T P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N A N D C O S T S | 6 - 1 5

6.5 ADMINISTRATIONAdministrationoftheCoastalRailTrailwillinvolveboththeRTCandtheimplementingentities.TheRTCwillremainthepropertyowner,willcontinuetoprovideregionalpolicyoversightfortrailswithintherailright-of-waycorridor,andwillcoordinatewiththerailoperator.Forsegmentsorfacilitiesonlocalroadsorotherpublicrights-of-ways,theappropriateimplementingentitywillmaintainoversightand/orresponsibility.RTCstaffwillprovideaforumforpublicinputthroughoutthetraildevelopmentprocess,augmentingpublicinputinthelocalplanninganddesignprocess.

6.6 TRAIL IMPLEMENTATIONInregardtoMBSSTNetworkconstructionimprovements,themainroleoftheRTCistoprovideongoingcoordinationservicesandassistwiththefundingforimplementationoftheMBSSTNetwork.TheRTCwilltaketheleadinpreparingmemorandaofunderstanding(MOUs)betweenitselfandimplementingentitiestoclarifyroles,responsibilitiesfordesign,development,construction,monitoring,andmaintenanceoftheMBSSTNetwork.TheRTCmayalsoactasaprojectmanager.

ThefollowingdescribestheRTC’simplementationresponsibilitiesingreaterdetail:

• Funding-Uponidentificationofasegment,theRTCorleadagencywillorganizeafundingstrategytodesign,construct,andmaintainthesegment.RTCstaffwillassistimplementingentitiesindevelopingfundableprojects,matchingprojectswithfundingsources,andhelpingtocompletecompetitivefundingapplications.Insomecases,RTCmayactastheprojectsponsororcosponsor.

• Progress-Throughboardpresentations,websitenotifications,andothervenues,theRTCwillprovideregularupdatestothepublicregardingthestatusofthetraildevelopment.

• Oversight-TheRTCwillworkcloselywithimplementingentities,planning,parks,andPublicWorksstafftoimplementtrailsegments.

• Coordination-Finally,shouldtheRTCincuradditionaloperatingexpensestocoordinateimplementation,maintenance,operation,andliabilityofthetrailthroughagreementswithimplementingentities,fundingwillneedtobeidentified.

RTC• MBSSTDocumentpreparation• EIRPreparation• Funding• Oversight• Progressupdates• Promotion

Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with

Implementing Entity as Construction Manager

MontereyBaySanctuaryScenicTrailMasterPlan

Implementing Entity

• IdentifyFunding• Consultantretainer• Designdevelopment• Planpreparation• Publicoutreach• Constructionoversight• Environmentalclearance• Permits

RTC• Consultantretainer• Designdevelopment• Planpreparation• Publicoutreach• Memorandaof

Understanding• Constructionoversight• Environmentalclearance• Permits

RTC as Construction Manager

TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION

6 - 1 6 | MON T E R E Y B AY S A N C T U A R Y S C E N I C T R A I L N E TWO R K M A S T E R P L A N - F I N A L

Thefollowingdescribesimplementingentities’responsibilitiesingreaterdetail:

• Oncethesegmentasbeenidentifiedandfunded,theRTCand/orimplementingentitiesmayemployin-housestafforretainaqualifiedbicycleandpedestriantrailplanningconsultanttodesignthetrailconstructiondocuments.AfterreviewbytheRTC’sadvisorycommitteesandimplementingentities,boardsandcommittees,theRTCwillreviewandapproveofalltraildesignssubmittedbytheimplementingentities.TheRTCBicycleCommitteewillreviewdesignandengineeringplansattheconceptualanddetailedlevels.

• Inconjunctionwithimplementingentitiesand/ortrailplanningconsultant,aseriesofworkshopsshouldbeconductedtointroducetheprojecttothepublicandtoidentifyanynewinformationnotincludedinthisMasterPlan.

• Implementingentitieswillberesponsibleforoverseeinganynecessaryenvironmentalclearance.Theimplementingentitieswillobtainthenecessaryplanning,environmental,anddevelopmentpermits.

• TheRTCmayoverseeprojectconstruction.Thismaybedoneinconsultationwiththeimplementingentityand/ortrailplanningorconstructionmanagementconsultant.

6.7 TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION OVER JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIESThe20trailalignmentsegmentsincorporatelogicalstartandendpointsbasedonphysicaland/orgeographicalfeatures.Insomeinstances,itwasnecessarytoextendasegmentacrossjurisdictionalboundariestothenextsignificantphysicalfeature.TheRTCowns31milesoftheapproximately32-mile-longSantaCruzBranchRailroadcorridorright-of-wayandwillworkcloselywiththeCityofSantaCruz,SantaCruzCounty,CityofCapitola,CityofWatsonville,andStateParkswheretrailsegmentscrossjurisdictionalboundariesorwhenthesegmentislocatedsolelywithintheirjurisdiction.

6.8 À LA CARTE TRAIL DEVELOPMENT (PARTIAL SEGMENT)Duetocostsorotherconsiderations,itmaynotalwaysbepossibletodevelopanentiresegmentatonce.Inaddition,thescopeofgrantfundingmaylimitthetypesofimprovementsthatmaybefunded.Itispossiblethatonlyaportionofatrailsegment,facility,oramenitymaybefunded/constructedatonetime.Forexample,itispossiblethatjusttheCoastalRailTrailportionofasegmentmaybefundedwhiletheon-streetimprovementsmaynotorviseversa.Remainingfacilitiesmaybeimprovedatalaterdate.

An implementing entity is defined as a city,

county, RTC, state park, or other body.

The RTC owns 31 miles of the approximately

32-mile-long Santa Cruz Branch Railroad corridor right-of-way, allowing the RTC to act as the primary developer of the Coastal Rail Trail.