HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/1997, 1 - WATER REUSE PROJECT - CERTIFICATION OF EIR council March 25 1997
j agenda uepoin
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Moss,Utilities Director
Prepared By: David Pierce,tastewater Reclamation Coordinator
SUBJECT: WATER REUSE PROJECT-CERTIFICATION OF EIR �f
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution certifying that the EIR for the Water Reuse Project is adequate.
REPORT-M-BRIEF
The Water Reuse Project will provide a distribution system to deliver up to 1,233 acre-feet a year of
high quality tertiary reclaimed water to large volume customers throughout San Luis Obispo. The
locations of the pump stations, water storage facilities, treatment equipment, and pipelines are shown
on Exhibit B. The Water Reclamation Facility currently discharges approximately 4,000 acre-feet of
reclaimed water per year to San Luis Obispo Creek under a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. Upon completion of the Water Reuse Project a portion of this reclaimed
water will be distributed for reuse. The reclaimed water meets the State of California Department of
Health Services' requirements for reclaimed water that is suitable for use other than drinking, food
preparation, swimming, or within residential living quarters.
Approximately 400 acre-feet will replace current use within the City. Approximately 300 acre-feet may
be used at Cal Poly in exchange for a similar quantity of water from Cal Poly's share of Whale Rock.
Approximately 455 acre-feet per year will be used to meet the non-potable water needs of development
projected in the Land Use Element of the General Plan
On December 21, 1995 a second Draft EIR on the Water Reuse Project was circulated for public
comment. The Draft EIR indicates that without mitigations there may be significant impacts to the
biological resources of San ,Luis Obispo Creek. This determination was based on a Biological
Resource Assessment and Impact Analysis which was prepared by Fugro West, Inc. using data
provided by an Instream Flow Study and a Hydrology and Ground-water Modeling of Lower Son Luis
Obispo Creekfor the Water Reuse Project.
The frequency of the unmitigated significant impacts associated with the four discharge scenarios that
were evaluated in the Biological Resource Assessment and Impact Analysis- San Luis Obispo Creek-
Water Reuse Project are summarized in the table below.
Council Agenda Report - cer Reuse Project - Certification of EL
Page 2
Frequ=of Significant acts Before gV ation
Resources Minimum Disc a Alternatives
Zero 1.0 cfs 913.0 cfs
Vegetation D O O µ O
Wildlife D O O
Southern steelhead D&A D&A ?
Southwestern pond turtle D&A D&A D
California red-legged frog O O O
Tidewater goby D&A D&A ?
O No Effect A Average Year
D Dry Year ? Not quantified
The analysis determined that these impacts could be mitigated to a level of less than significant.
The U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service rendered a Biological Opinion concerning the tidewater goby stating
that the"reasonable and prudent measure"necessary and appropriate to minimize the incidental take of
tidewater gobies is the continued release of 1.7 cfs of effluent. The Service also suggested a
"Conservation Recommendation"to participate in and support the development and implementation of
a watershed management plan for San Luis Obispo.
The project is defined to dedicate 1.7 cfs of wastewater effluent to public trust resources.
The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan proposes the following mitigation measures:
1. Replace Fish Ladder at Marre Dam.
2. Create 12,000 square feet of off-creek pond turtle habitat.
3. Construct a well field to supply irrigation water for the Hayashi property.
4. Construct alternative outfall for 1.7 cfs discharge approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the present
outfall.
5. Expend $75,000 for other creek improvement programs and provide an annual amount based on a
fixed rate per acre-foot of recycled water sold to fund watershed maintenance and improvement
projects.
Following certification of the Elm the State Water Resources Control Board will also review the
adequacy of the E1R as part of the process of issuing the Permit for Change of Purpose of Use and
Place of Use of Treated Wastewater:
The Water Reuse Project is estimated to cost$9,200,000 with a resulting cost to deliver recycled water
of between$600 and $900 per acre foot. This price is within the range of other water supply projects.
The additional cost of the mitigation measures is estimated to be less than 10%of the total project cost.
The City Council is being asked to certify that the EIR does adequately describe the project, project
impacts, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts to less than significant levels.
Council Agenda Report - .ter Reuse Project- Certification of El-
Page 3
MSCUSSION
Project Description
The Water Reuse Project will provide a distribution system to deliver up to 1233 acre-feet a year of
high quality tertiary reclaimed water to large volume customers throughout San Luis Obispo. The
locations of the pump stations, water storage facilities, treatment equipment, and pipelines are shown
on Exhibit B. The existing pond at the south end of the Water Reclamation Facility will be enlarged for
storage. The pond will also be landscaped to improve its appearance and habitat value. Reclaimed
water may also be stored in a currently unused five million gallon reservoir located north of the City on
Fox Hollow Road. Approximately 8-1/2 miles of pipeline will be installed and approximately 2-1/2
miles of abandoned petroleum pipelines will be used.
The Water Reclamation Facility produces approximately 4000 acre-feet of recycled water a year. Since
1994,the recycled water has been a disinfected tertiary reclaimed water that is suitable for all irrigation
needs and many other uses. This water is currently discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek under a
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit that is issued by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Upon completion of the Water Reuse Project a portion of this reclaimed water
will be distributed for reuse. The production is at a relatively constant rate of 11 acre-feet per day(3.6
million gallons per day or 5.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). The Water Reuse Project proposes to
continue a minimum discharge of 1.7 cfs (1.1 million gallons per day) to San Luis Obispo Creek for
maintenance of instream habitat. Up to 3.8 cfs (2.5 million gallons per day) will be available for reuse.
Since the primary use of recycled water in the City of San Luis Obispo will be irrigation, the demand
will peak during the hottest periods of the summer and be significantly less during the winter months.
Excess water will be discharged to the creek.
Allowable Uses of Reclaimed Water
The recycled water produced by the City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reclamation Facility is suitable
for use other than drinking, food preparation, swimming, or within residential living quarters. The
Water Reclamation Facility produces a direct filtered tertiary reclaimed water which is also referred to
as a tertiary reclaimed water with a turbidity of less than 5 NTU before filtration. (Turbidity is a
measurement of the cloudiness of the water caused by suspended or colloidal particles that scatter
light.) The uses of reclaimed water allowed by the current draft of the State of California Department
of Health Service's Water Reclmnation Criteria portion of Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 3 of the
California Code of Regulations are summarized in Exhibit C. The use of recycled water requires a
permit from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board which enforces these regulations.
On August 20, 1991, City Council adopted a resolution Establishing Policy Regarding the Use of
Reclaimed Water. This resolution provided a policy guideline for approving projects that use recycled
water. The guideline was slightly modified on January 25, 1994 by Resolution No. 8264(1994 series)
Revising Policy Regarding the Use of Reclaimed Water. The approved uses in Category I include:
• New irrigation/non-potable water uses within development approved for construction
within the City and approved for connection to the City water system.
• Existing irrigation/non-potable water uses connected to the City water system.
s/�J
Council Agenda Report- . .cer Reuse Project- Certification of EL
Page 4
• Existing irrigation/non-potable uses within the Urban Reserve Line (URL), with or
without s connections to the City water system, which employ private wells to supply or
augment non-potable water requirements
• Maintaining creek flow for existing instream uses.
Approved uses in Category II may be supplied after the needs of category I uses have been met.
• Outside of the Urban Reserve Line irrigation/non-potable users that maintain or enhance
agriculture or open space.
Project Proposed Uses of Reclaimed Water
Current or Existing(oMM-700 afy to be used for irrigation.
• 65 acre-feet. Laguna Middle School, C.L. Smith, Hawthorne, Sinsheimer Elementary Schools
which irrigate with the City potable water. The High School is not listed because it is irrigated
with well water.
• 10 acre-feet. Caltrans Route 101
• 230 acre-feet. City Parks
• 96 acre-feet. Private unit developments along the route
• 300 acre-feet for Cal Poly - This water will be exchanged for Cal Poly's Whale Rock water
that is currently being used for irrigation.
Future Development Areas-455 afy to be used for irrigation.
ion.
• 200 acre-feet for development proposed to occur along Madonna Road and Los Osos Valley
Road
• 255 acre-feet for development proposed to occur in the Margarita and Airport areas.
Estimated Project Cost
The current CIP proposes to construct the Water Reuse Project in two phases at an estimated total
cost of$9,200,000. Phase one constructs common facilities at the Water Reclamation Facility and the
branches to serve the Laguna Lake area, and the downtown and Cal Poly at a cost of$6,700,000.
Phase two constructs the service to the Margarita area and Sinsheimer Park at a cost of$2,500,000.
This estimate does not include the costs associated with the mitigation plan or the costs associated
with the mo&fiicauons of the users' on-site facilities to insure separation of the potable and
nonpotable water systems Those costs are estimated to be less than 10%of the total project cost
It is estimated that the cost of delivering reclaimed water will be between$600 and$900 per acre foot.
This price is within the range of other water supply projects currently under consideration.
Proposed Project Schedule
Spring 1997;complete environmental review by SWRCB.
Spring 1997,award design contract.
Spring 1998,award construction contract.
Summer 1999, deliver water.
Council Agenda Report- .ter Reuse Project-Certification of EL
Page 5
Impacts and Mitigations
The EIR addresses potential impacts in fourteen areas from water resources and growth inducement to
agriculture and biological resources. A copy of the summary of these impacts from the Executive
Summary of the EIR is attached as Exhibit D. This summary identifies the potential impact and the
action, if any, that is required to reduce the impact to a level of less than significant. The major
concerns identified in response to the Notice of Preparation and the drafts of the EIR were the impacts
related to the reduction of creek flows. The impact to downstream biological resources was the focus
of the studies performed by consulting biologists and hydrologists.
Using the data provided by the Instream Flow Study and the Hydrology and Ground-water Modeling
of Lower San Luis Obispo Creek for the Water Reuse Project, Fugro West, Inc. prepared the
Biological Resource Assessment and Impact Analysis which identifies and evaluates the significance of
impacts.Four species of concern found in the area were specifically addressed. These impacts are listed
below in two groups, those that are less than significant and those that require mitigation measures to
reduce the impacts to a level of less than significance.
Impacts that do not require mitigation
Hydrology-Flow in San Luis Obispo Creek. Reducing the stream flow or the occasional drying of a
stream on the Central Coast is not in itself a significant impact.
• During the average year the flow immediately upstream of the confluence with See Canyon will be
1.0 cfs.
• During a dry year the creek will go dry just upstream of the confluence with Castro Canyon(2 1/2
miles downstream of the Water Reclamation Facility and 1 mile upstream of the intersection of San
Luis Bay Drive with Highway 101).
Vegetation-
• Unless the streambed is dry for multiple years there is no significant impact to riparian vegetation.
The release of excess water during the fall,winter, and spring recharges the aquifer and reduces the
impact to vegetation even during drought years.
Agriculture
• Less water will be available for pumping from the surface flow of San Luis Obispo Creek. The
Hydrology and Groundwater Model predicts that there is sufficient water within the basin so that
current agricultural irrigation demands can be met from shallow wells. It is not considered a
significant impact for the property owners to have to install wells to use the natural water within
the basin.
Wildlife
• Terrestrial wildlife is sufficiently mobile that there will be no significant impact. This is especially
true since there is no significant impact to riparian vegetation.
California red-legged frog
• There is no impact to the California red-legged frog. Periodic drying of lower portions of the creek
may improve this frog's ability to compete with the introduced bullfrog that currently occupies this
area
Council Agenda Report- _ter Reuse Project - Certification of EL
Page 6
Impacts for which mitigation measures are re &ed
Tidewater goby
• Reduced flow of freshwater may reduce the area of habitat with preferred salinity levels.
• Since the tidewater goby is a federally listed endangered species, consultation was initiated with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the measures that would be required to mitigate
impacts to the tidewater goby. The Service rendered a Biological Opinion on November 13, 1996
stating that the `reasonable and prudent measure" necessary and appropriate to minimize the
incidental take of tidewater gobies is the continued release of 1.7 cfs of eluent. The Service also
suggested a "Conservation Recommendation" to participate in and support the development and
implementation of a watershed management plan for San Luis Obispo Creek. The Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan includes a measure to implement this recommendation.
Pacific pond turtle
• Approximately 12,000 square feet of pond habitat may be lost during portions of average and dry
years.
• The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan proposes to create 12,000 square feet of off-creek pond turtle
habitat. The project itself will create an additional 80,000 square feet of storage pond which along
with the existing 160,000 square feet of storage pond will be enhanced for turtle and water fowl
habitat.
Southern steelhead
• The reduced flows may decrease by half the amount of pools that could potentially support the
rearing of juvenile steelhead during the dry and average years. The probability that these areas
would be used is not very high based on a statement in a letter dated February 2, 1992, from,Brian
Hunter the Regional Manager for Region 3 of the Department Fish and Game in which he said,
"San Luis Obispo Creek currently has little if any, rearing habitat for steelhead below the
wastewater discharge. This is undoubtedly in part because of current water quality, but is also
because of degraded habitat in the lower creek reaches." The recent history of the steelhead fishery
downstream of the Water Reclamation Facility supports the opinion that this is a migratory
corridor. The Water Reuse Project will have no impact during the migration season of November
through March.
• On January 10, 1997, at the request of citizen groups, the EPA and the National Marine Fisheries
Service initiated consultation regarding impacts that this project may have on the steelhead. The
NMFS indicated that it would be appropriate to continue with the certification process in a timely
manner.
• Several of the measures of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan are focused at reducing the impact
to the steelhead. These include improving the passage past the Marre Dam to increase the number
of fish entering the creek to spawn constructing a well field to supply irrigation water for the
Hayashi property to decrease the length of creek that may be dry during dry years, constructing an
alternative outfall for 1.7 cfs discharge to increase the wetted length of the creek by approximately
3,000 feet, and contributing funds to and participating in regional efforts to enhance the habitat
value of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The combined efforts of maintaining water in
portions of the creek and improving the habitat value in these and other areas are expected to
produce some fair to good habitat where little or none existed in the past.
/-6
Council Agenda Report- .ter Reuse Project - Certification of&
Page 7
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
The continued discharge of 1.7 cfs of reclaimed water is technically not a mitigation measure because
that release is part of the scope of the project that was evaluated in the E1R However, dedicating this
flow to the public trust resources is significant because it will provide a water right. The resource
agencies that manage the public trust resources can use that water right to insure that the water remains
available to the fish and wildlife. Without a dedication, the effluent could continue to be extracted
downstream to support development outside the City. The dedication will contain a condition that the
water quality requirements for discharge will not change significantly. This condition is necessary to
preclude the City from being required to provide significant additional treatment prior to discharge.
The 1.7 cfs, if sold, could produce 550 acre feet of water to meet irrigation demand that would be
worth more than$800,000 per year.
The mitigation measures are mentioned above in conjunction with the impacts for which they have .
been chosen. These mitigation measures are discussed in more detail below. The Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan includes the following five mitigation measures:
1. Replace Fish Ladder at Macre Dam.
2. Create 12,000 square feet of off-creek pond turtle habitat.
3. Construct a well field to supply irrigation water for the Hayashi property.
4. Construct alternative outfall for 1.7 cfs discharge approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the present
outfall.
5. a)Expend$75,000 for other creek improvement programs.
b)Fund Watershed Maintenance and Improvement projects at a fixed rate per acre-foot of recycled
water sold
These mitigation measures take into consideration that the fundamental effect of the project is the
reduction of water discharged to the creek, that it is difficult to mitigate for the loss of water, that the
impacts are significant only during the dry season of dry years, that prior to the start of this project San
Luis Obispo Creek had been described as having little, if any, rearing habitat for steelhead below the
wastewater discharge, and that the City must be responsible to assure that the mitigations are
completed.
1. Reulace Fish Ladder at Marre Dam. Installation of a new fish ladder would improve the movement
of fish past this barrier. Since this is a replacement of an existing structure the parties responsible
for the operation and maintenance of the existing structure should continue to be responsible for
maintenance at this location.
2. Create 12.000 square feet of off-creek pond turtle habitat. Off-creek habitat consisting of stream
fed pools will be created at one of several sites within the area downstream of the Water
Reclamation Facility. This is in addition to the additional 80,000 square feet of storage pond that
will be completed at the Water Reclamation Facility. The entire six acres of the expanded pond will
be enhanced for turtle and water fowl habitat.
3. Construct a well field to supply irrigation water for the Hayashi property. The Hydrology and
O vwzd-water Modeling of Lower Son Luis Obispo Creek for the Water Reuse demonstrates that
replacement of an existing direct stream diversion at this location will provide a seasonal delay in
the impact on the creek so that an additional 4,000 feet of creek will remain wet during the dry
/-71
Council Agenda Report- .ter Reuse Project - Certification of Ei-
Page 8
years. The fad that the property owner will not be abandoning any right to extract water from the
creek is not significant because in the dry years of concern, the only water in the creek will be the
effluent that is dedicated to the Public Trust Resources.
4. Construct alterative outfall for 1.7 ds discharge approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the present
outfall. This mitigation measure has the potential to provide an additional 3,000 feet of surface
flow in a portion of the creek that has historically gone dry even in average rainfall years. This is a
commitment only to release the water at this location. The City does not have adequate information
on the dry season flow effects of a discharge at this location and it is unlikely that it would be
possible to evaluate the success of this effort until such time as the water is discharged at this
location throughout a drought. Secondary impacts of the new outfall location(vegetation removal,
water quality, and public safety)will not be significant
5. a)Expend$75,000 for other creek improvement programs. Stream bank improvements can have a
significant impact on the water quality and the value of habitat. The City will implement any of
several actions that include working with ranchers to manage cattle in the creek, planting trees to
revegetate creek banks, working with other agencies and associations to develop and train owners
to use improved standards for creek maintenance.
b) Fund Watershed Maintenance and Improvement Projects at a fixed rate per acre-foot of
recycled water sold during the first 20 years. Staff recommends that the fixed rate be set at $25.00.
per acre-foot of recycled water sold. The City's Utilities Department and Natural Resource
Manager will develop projects and programs to use this money for work needed to improve the
watershed. These projects and programs will be developed with participation of other concerned
individuals, organizations and agencies such as the Land Conservancy and the Department of Fish
and Game. The amount of money available each year will increase with the amount of reclaimed
water sold which is directly related to the significance of any impact.
Actions Required after Certification
Dedication of water to be discharged. Following certification of the EK staff will return to the City
Council with a resolution dedicating the discharged wastewater to the public trust resources. The
dedication will be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 1.5 section 1212 of the California
Water Code.
Establish the fixed rate per acre-foot of recycled water to be dedicated to stream enhancement.
Following certification of the Elk staff will return to the City Council with a resolution establishing a
fee to be contributed to stream enhancement for the first 20 years of the water reuse project. Staff
recommends that the fixed rate be set at$25.00 per acre-foot of recycled water sold.
SWRCB Permit. After the City Council Certifies the EIR, the State Water Resource Control Board
will proceed with the process of issuing the permit to change the place of use and the purpose of use of
treated wastewater. The application for this permit has been accepted by the Board. Protests based on
claims of prior water rights have been rejected and a final decision on protests based on environmental
issues is awaiting their review of this EIR
��O
Council Agenda Report- . .ter Reuse Project - Certification of EL
Page 9
Design. An RFP for design services will be issued so that an agreement for design services can be
completed shortly after the SWRCB issues the permit.
SRF Financing Application.An application for a State Revolving Fund loan will be submitted following
Certification of the EIR.
Award Construction Contract Upon completion of the above activities a construction contract should
be ready for award by the spring of 1998.
Alternatives
• No Action. If the City Council takes no action on the EK staff should be given directions for
subsequent action on this project. Staff could return with a modified EIR, return with a modified
project, or return with proposals to take the actions needed to cancel the project.
• Moif*Findings and Mtizadon Measures. The City Council could modify the findings and the
mitigation measures. This could take several forms:
♦ The Council could make additional findings and determine that additional mitigation
measures are necessary.
♦ The Council could make findings of overriding considerations and reduce the scope of the
mitigation plan or decrease the amount of water to be dedicated to the public trust
resources. A reduction in the amount of water to be released would require further
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Modify Scone of the 1'roiect. The City Council could modify the scope of the project'and direct
staff to return with a proposal of actions necessary to process the environmental review of the
modified project.
Summary
The City Council is being asked to certify that the Water Reuse Project EIR does adequately describe
the project, project impacts, and mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impacts to less than
significant levels. The project described in the EIR proposes to reuse up to 2/3 of the water that is
reclaimed by the Water Reclamation Facility during summer months. The EIR was prepared by City
staff with assistance from professional archeologists, biologists and hydrologists who prepared an
Invwdory of Cultural Resourced an Insiream Flow Study a Hydrology and Groundwater Modeling of
Lower Sar Luis Obispo Creek a Biological Resource Assessment and Impact Analysis and a
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The EIR contains comments received from the public and other
governmental agencies and responses to those comments.
�- 9
Council Agenda Report der Reuse Project.-Certification of EL.
Page 10 - -
ATTACHMENTS
Ezlubits
A. Resolution Ceatirying the Environmental ImpactReport for the Water Reuse Project
B. Map of Water Reuse Project
C. DHS Permitted Uses of Reclaimed Water.
D: Summary of Potential Adverse Environmental Impacts and,Proposed Mitigation Measures
Copies of the EIR were distributed'separately. Copies are also.available at:955 Morin Street, at the
City-County Library and at the Cal Poly Library
g-AeaAreuse eir car.doc
RESOLUTION NO. (1997 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
THE WATER REUSE PROJECT(SCH No. 92031048)
WHEREAS, the City has published and made available for public review a Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Water Reuse Project, in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Impact Procedures and Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 1997, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the EIR.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. The Council hereby certifies, finds, and determines that the Final EIR has
been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR has
been presented to the City Council and has been reviewed and considered by the City Council
prior to approval of the project, (which approval shall occur at a subsequent meeting of the City
Council). The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and determines that it
represents and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
SECTION 2. The City Council further certifies , finds, and determines that the Final EIR is
adequate and that the potentially significant environmental impacts of the project will be reduced
to a level of less than significant through the incorporation of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
(Appendix L) into the project at the time of approval at a subsequent meeting of the City Council.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted on this day of_ 1997.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk, Bonnie Gawf
taw
ty tomKyp6eV6rgensen
Exhibit A
f
I
Reservoir ^�
12 to
r
-f
Proposed '
Pu Station j
72;
4.-ITI-.r
Proposed
. . 8� Sump
�\.
<<< % � � Station
Proposed Storage Ponds,
Pump Station and
Treatment Facility
20 r I
i
LUIS ompO : C` Water Reel anon
aty Of san
Facili - c\
.. . ....... .cirr.00hs...........__. j�
LEGEND
Proposed Pipeline Route - � Proposed Use Areas
i ■ • ■ In •• r Abandoned Unocal Pipeline Possible Future Use Areas
w r Alternate Pipeline Route 10 Pipe Diameter
i
WATER REUSE PROJECT
Facilities Map
Figure 2-1 Exhibit sI IA
Vatar
DleirDWnfected Undlalnaxted
TefWnr tp7erNej Secondary Secmdary Se=xk"
Reclaimed !: Fµi 22 23 Reclaimed
Water -1ReeleeaedR Reclaimed Reclaimed Water
. Viist�r=l Water Water
trrfgatfon of. SLO l
Food crops where reclaimed water contacts the edible portion of theCrop
Tincludes all edible root Allowed "
his `i40owedi Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Parts and playgrounds AllowedAIbM9d:` Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Schod yards Allowed tAlI0W8l1s NI allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Residential Landscaping Allowed !.9AjkW*dg Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Unresfiided access golf courses Allowed i lINAI oriW Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Any otter irrigation use rat prohibited by fitter provisions of the California Allowed ,'Avowed' Not avowed Not allowed Not allowed
Code of Regulations
Food crops where edible portion above
produced ground and std Allowed �{Ailoi�iiaQ�,; Allowed Not allowed Not allowed
contacted by reclaurad water n d'
Cemeteries Allowed Ii;:A"dvoW Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Freeway landscaping Allowed ' .
7Ll11.IiiweQ Allowed Allowed Nat allowed
Restricted access golf courses Allowed AIIdHied r. Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Ornamental nursery stock and sod farms Allowed '.=AlbwedU Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Pasture for milk animals Allowed ;:Albweil Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Arty Wnedible vegetation where access is controlled to prevent use as if R Allowed E,:A laWedl Allowed Allowed Not allowed
were a park,pWyground or school yard
Orchards where reclaimed water does rat contact edible portion of crop Allowed :Al wed Allowed Allowed Allowed
Vinayards where reclaimed water does riot contact edible porton of crop Allowed {'Alliitiiref=:lti Allowed Allowed Allowed
Nat trees-Christmas trees unto 14 days before public access Allowed mAlktwed f Allowed Allowed Allowed
Fodder and fiber crops Allowed ! Allowed`u; Allowed Allowed Allowed
Seed crops not eaten by hunsns Allowed 61'IAlld"wi-edjf Allowed Allowed Allowed
Food crops that must undergo commercial pathogen-destroying processing Allowed All Allowed Allowed Allowed
before consumption by humans
Supply for impoundment
Nonrestricted recreational impoundments Allowed Nd4 alliiwetl Not allowed Not allowed NotLa=jbwedRestricted recreational Impoundments and fish hatcheries Allowed :RAllgwed Allowed Not avowed Notto wdthout decorative fountains Allowed !�kfwed= Allowed Allowed Not
Supply for coofing and air conditioning:
Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning with coding tower,
evaporative condenser,or spraying that creates a mist Allowed j:Ndt 0mlaa et1: Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Industrial or commercial cooling or air conditioning without cooling tower, Allowed "i,Allowed" Allowed Allowed Not alloyed
evaporative condenser,or spraying that creates a mist Vy.!i ,: l
Odw uses:
Flushing toilets and urinals Allowed "E:'AlkniietLi Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Priming drain traps Allowedr Allowiec!: Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Industrial process water that may contact workers Allowed T'Alluwed 4 Not aiwwed Not allowwed Not allowed
Structural fire fighting Allowed Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Decorative fountains
Allowed `NAnuYved!;;; Not avowed Not allowed Not allowed
Commercial laundries Allowed `?All-W- Not allowed Not allowed Not allowed
Consolidation of backfill material around potable water pipes Allowed FW0j nil Not allowed Not avowed Not allowed
Artificial snow making for commercial outdoors uses Allowed [+. AlloWW Not allowed Not allowed Not alloyed
Industrial holler feedAllowed �mAllo, :"..::----
; w7etl_: Allowed Allowed Not snowed
Nonstructural fire fighting Allowed :-hf owed& Albwed Allowed Not allowed
Bacldm consolidation around nonpotable piping Allowed 1;..Wkivredf=r Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Soll compaction Allowed "'Alkiwedi.I Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Mbdng concrete I Allowed ..HAIkWW,w±I Allowed Allowed Not allowed
Dist control on mads and streets Allowed :3A116wed4 AllowedAllowed Not allowed
Cleaning roads,sidewalks and outdoor work areas Allowed -A1kiWed;t' Allowed Avowed 1 Nat allowed
.:�
Flushing sewers Allowed iAllovved- Allowed I Allowed Allowed
Exlubit C
f-i3
r
06y
hV • • •
064
y y r
^L 4G 6i y dwS 5 p+ y N C a IS
rt N fA. •C. N� O �
_
do IE
�j
r3 (n v� A
4N0yi
COO
to
.Gp V y °)O E X zO °a g-8 " ° 1 g ra
ooo
wi
95 Q.
06
�+ Q �i Com' 7 d g 'g.. O r r G W W N C.�.w y o d
w p
O
N
� WJ = �
a a 0 o
O h h r
Cd
���jj u O N 3 O
O Fy �+ 'C WO C
.+ p� 1,
>y O ` O O cd
Vop 0
�n O 7 Y y
ao
3:8 x aw
4
V
X
G � yy
•� L
L q �
cc C
v�
tv
I W I
a 0 9
ani N P
a
p 9 LD
cno w 'NI oQ.� 8
8 �
W Z .ny E 8 9 �7 N �,d
wj
wi � �32to
� a Q U 'o 8
L v �
N
QG
►-7 W G ° ° 3 s
00 tv W
w Q 10
O _
o 8 oow
s � o a 0
E d
G ..... A F � � Fr
C
_ d
0;
r
w
06
U 8E CIS o ° � oil
0'oE � 5 �
to
to -So
4. C3 C
0 .. o CCll
CC
0 of = � C � eh 4 .[°.
z aap 3 o 3 E _ o �rcc �y� $ u,o ° o
T ma n-�'��� m8 � X b o,ono a � Eo
WCA 8
06 Q e� m a� abE o �by as ao � b
Q A vQ 3U o ° • • • • <� Uva
:cant L
,�„ 'fes • • • • • • • •
0
W H Oa p t0 id O
'"� R ea E..0. r
a � y�j (y3� 0. C a
Lr O .0 y L� O.,L� L 1� �"
[�1 94 � �rw
� 07 � g � 3 E 19 p
O Q U O•� S A > r 4Op. 'O p C
�1 ^� Op Q e0+ d �C..y. ea M z Oy G
OQ, C/I •��x •� y� �u 5 �i � C 0.0 tL�Otl � � G
CO
a � eon � cc
to H t7i
o Ua0 U � 3v� aav � 8 a ageS
� � o
U
MAR 20 '97 16 04 FR DFG -BION-3 TO 8Pa57817198 P.02/04
sTATE OF CALVoRN1A.THE gF3O=rS AGENCY _ MEETING AGENDA PETE""U°N•C°�w
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME DATE. V TEM # I
°06T OFFICE BOXr'
CUNMLLE.CAL146
n 1 L- i101
(707)UA-V40. 4 1 1March 20, 1997
MM 71'r .
ENC
UNCIL ❑ CDD DIR �+
CITY CLERK ho ❑ FIN DIR
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
RNEY ❑ PW DIR
Mr. David Pierce RYCLERKJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
City of San Luis Obispo ❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ jECDIR
955 Morro Street ❑ C FILE WUTILDIR
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 ❑ PERSDIR
Dear Mr. Pierce_
Final Environmental Impact Report for the
City of San Luis Obispo Water Reuse Project
SCH# 92031048
Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Water Reuse
Project. The document included a revised Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan. It is important that we make a few comments on
the Final ETR before the City Council considers certification on
March 25 .
In our February 1, 1996 comments on the Draft EIR we
expressed concern about negative impacts to juvenile steelhead
habitat if the Water Reclamation Facility discharge was reduced
from 5 . 5 to 1 .7 cfs during the summer months . The response to
those expressed concerns was a quotation from our February 27,
1992 letter in which said, "San Luis Obispo Creek currently has
little, if any, rearing habitat for steelhead below the
wastewater discharge . This is undoubtedly in part because of
current water quality, but is also because of degraded habitat in
the lower reaches. " This quotation is taken out of context.
The main intent of the letter (copy attached) was to provide
comments on a proposed study plan by Mr. Thomas Payne . . The
reference to little, if any, rearing habitat for steelhead below
the wastewater discharge was . primarily based on the poor water
quality of that discharge.. It was also in part based on the fact
that there is little steelhead spawning habitat in that reach of
stream. We do find significant steelhead nursery habitat in. Sari
Luis Obispo Creek below the wastewater discharge which is
important in maintaining a viable steelhead population.
In response to our steelhead concerns, Mr. Paul Cleveland' s
comments were cited. Our interpretation of Mr. Cleveland' s
comments *is that if the contribution of the wastewater discharge
was reduced by the proposed 69 percent the depth of the pools
would be reduced to a point where juvenile steelhead would not
use them. In his 16-mile field survey of the mainstem of San Luis
Aft 20 '97 16:04 FR DFG REGION-3 TO 88057817198 P.03iO4
Mr. David Pierce
March 13, 1997
Page Two
Obispo Creek, Mr. Cleveland found that 166 out of 210 pools
surveyed were located in the seven mile stretch below the
Wastewater Reclamation Facility. We maintain that our stated
concerns about the loss of juvenile steelhead habitat are still
valid. In addition, we object to the use of the quotation from
our letter to respond to comments from other agencies and
individuals which expressed concerns about negative steelhead
impacts since it is not in context with the rest of our 1992
comments.
The revised Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is a substantial
improvement over the ten potential mitigation measures listed ,
Section 4 . 3 of the Draft EIR. The revised plan assigns
responsibilities and includes provisions for monitoring. The
mitigation measures outlined in the plan, when implemented either
separately or together, will facilitate minimizing potential
impacts to one or more of the identified species of concern .
However, the proposed mitigation measures alone will not reduce
sensitive species impacts to a level of less than significant. We
believe that less than significant impacts to the stream' s public
trust resources can only be achieved with minimum discharges
greater than the proposed 1 . 7 cfs.
We support the goals that the City is trying to achieve with
the Water Reuse Project_ Our staffs have made significant
Progress toward developing strategies that will achieve these
goals and protect the public trust resources of San Luis Obispo
Creek. We look forward to the continuation of this cooperative
work. If you have questions, please contact Chuck Marshall,
Associate Fishery Biologist, at (805) 237-9538; or Carl Wilcox,
Environmental Services Supervisor, at (707) 944-5525.
Sincerely,
Brian Hunter
Regional Manager
Region 3
cc: See Attached Page
/,,,�R 20 '97 16:05 FR DFGREGION-3 TO 88057817198 P.04/04
Mr. David Pierce
March 20, 1997
Page Three
CC: Mr. Mike Monroe
Environmental Protection Agency
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Luis Obispo
U. S . Fish and Wildlife Service
Ventura
Mr_ Jim Bybee
Habitat Conservation Division
National Marine Fisheries Service
Santa Rosa
Mr. Chuck Marshall
Mr. Jim Lidberg
Department of Fish and Came
�kk TOTAL PAGE.04 �k�k
M 'ING AGENDA
DAIE ITEM #
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Streel San Luis Obispo. California 93401-3_278
March 25, 1997 (805) 781-277 7 • FAX (8001 5 13 1"55COUNCIL
e-mail: slo-chamber wslonel or ❑ CDDflDIR .
David E. Garth. Pwsidcnl!CEO CAVACAOO ❑ FIN
❑ FIRE
,W,ATMMEY ❑ PW
VIA HAND DELIVERY " "fid ❑ POU
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC
❑ C R D FILE f"UTIL
Mayor Allen Settle R� ❑ PER
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Certification of the Final EIR Report for the Water Reuse Project
Dear Mayor Allen Settle:
Over the past decade and a half, the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce has been
committed to securing new water sources for the City of San Luis Obispo. The Chamber has
been, and continues to be, a staunch supporter of the Water Reuse Project. The Water Reuse
Project is one of the most cost-effective water supply options currently available to the City,
has few environmental impacts, and the water rights for the project have been established by
the State Water Resources Control Board.
Tonight, you, as a member of the City Council, are being asked to certify that the Final EIR for
the Water Reuse Project adequately describes the project and its impacts and further that the
mitigation measures proposed reduce the impacts of the project to less than significant levels.
Having reviewed and discussed the Final EIR, the Chamber has determined that the
mitigation measures sufficiently address the potential environmental impacts of the project.
The Chamber therefore concurs with City Staff's recommendation to certify it as adequate.
We urge you to do the same.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
MAR 2 5 ivy/
clrY CLERK
Very Truly Yours, SAN LUIS OBISPo,CA
�1 • TEN YEARS
Robert L. Griffin Pierre Rademaker
Chairman of the Board Water Task Force Chairman
ACCREDITED
"AMUEP UF CUMf[PCr
�fsN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY •
die uam Tribune
3825 South Higuera • Post Office Box 112 • San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0112 • (805) 781-7800
In The Superior Court of The State of California
In and for the County of San Luis Obispo
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
DV#72996-0-4
City of SLO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ss.
County of San Luis Obispo
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen review in the City Clerk's
and not interested in the above entitled matter; I am :r city Of once (Room m at City
now, and at all times embraced in theublication iii san full 081sp Hall,990 Palm Street)and
P at the Utilities Department'
herein mentioned was, the principal clerk of the CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC (995 Morro Street).
HEARINGS For more information,
printers and publishers of the SAN LUIS OBISPO On Tuesday,March 25, please call Dave Pierce,
COUNTY TELEGRAM-TRIBUNE, a newspaper of City the San Luis Obispo aWatert 781 Projects Manager,
City Council will hold a at 781.7239.
general circulation, printed and published daily, public hearing to consider If you challange the
certification of the Final proposed action de-
Sundays excepted, at the City of San Luis Obispo in Environmental Impact Re-(scribed above in court,
the above named county and state; that notice at port for the Water Reuse you may be limited to
Project (formerly knownraisingonly those issues
which the annexed clippings is a true printed copy, as the Water Reclamation you or someone else
published in the above-named and Project).The meeting will raised at the public hear
was newspaper er -
P P P begin at 7:00 p.m. in the ing described in this no.
not in any supplement thereof - on the following iLiBRARY COMMUNITY tice, or in written corre-
dates,to-wwit: March 15, 1997 ROOM, 995 PALM spondence delivered to
STREET. A copy of the the City Council at, or
that said newspaper was duly and regularly final EIR is available for prior to, the public hear-
ascertained and established a newspaper of general --- �TYOF
circulation by Decree entered in the Superior Court SAN LUISOBISPO
of San Luis Obis County, State of California, on Bonnier Gawf,
PO ty. City Clerk
June 9, 1952, Case #19139 under the provisions of Mar.15,1997 dv72996
Chapter 1, Division 7, Title of the Government Code
of the State of California.
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that
the foregoing is true and correct.
ri�'tjljeaa -
ignature of nclpal lerk)
Date: March 15, 1997
RESOLUTION NO., 826.4 (1994 Series)
REVISING POLICY RP-GAR-
DING
THE Ust OF
RECLAIMED WATER
4
WHEREAS. the City Council adopted Resolution 7__
regarding the 024 �(1991 series
regarding. policy
12 use Of reclai
MeJ 'water
WHEUAS). City-policy
is to
PUMe a 'Wattr reuse program to S�upplem I :the -City's
water`supply, and
WHEREASi, by offset6fig able Water usewith - jaime4 %Apaj r. the
the current non=p9ta rec
CitY. Would be.able to avoid demands on the safe . __c
. Mm�J yield from iu other wvu sounts .3pd
WHEREAS, using reclaimed, water to re Pla—c-e or au —mkt :that U ff
for irrigation sed
making more u.dlor other non use would low 'he 4. d om privatewiljs
water available for potable use and lower rate of w, th---rawal from the basin
NOWI. Tim-RIEFORE by the City Qouncil,o_ City of
San:Luis
) B5 IT RE�01__V�D
Obispo th2 t"RtSol u ti on. 7024. (1991 so-ri s) _"RESOLVED,' -f the her0by rescinded.
BE IT RE
SoLvED I that City policy-cY fC`adi-9 fc—cla3Med water use
�Iate$ emphasis onoffsetting potable water demanfor Mn-P0table use
and minimizingtlie.amount _f;Sro.undpwater
0
pumped for n0n,-potab use.
BE IT RBSOLVED, that in ke4pingfwith Stated water ralarnati
water project should be cost effective when c Cga, reclaimed
ompared to deve,
loping 4 Rew potable water source.
BB IT FURTHF
R R.ESOL
that the followin is the City p
approving reclaime 9 _01icy guideline :for
water Projects. If demand for cat 60TY 1 is Inet; the
could be distributed 'n recl�drll
to category t4 water
CATWORY I
New
ii-" atOn/nOn-
" -'_ -n . I -_
1p p0abje.w.attrUs" Withb development approved focwstruc6onWithinthe City, and apPrQVedf6rc6_neCjGhto the Ater system,
City ,' System.
* Existing,irri9403/non-p6tab16 water uses u. Qpn6ected to theCity water system,.
0 Existing irrigation/non-pb
tabje'bkswithin. ,tire Urban Reserve Line with o -without
oonhemi6n&to.the dtY,water r
WA f Systerh whjqh ,gjjffpjoy private
nOn-potable water reqmir.cments'. Vale Wdl$ to supply or augment
Maintaining creek flow for existing insrrcAm -uses
� N - Figure 8.
r
LLJ
cr >,
001
a� ch
c
- i
- 1
p ep )
c�U N N N• pp
(44 !ooaL. j) rnm
Figgie 13.
LU
L
-- i' co
i UL ULlow
tar
cul
LU
uiIO),
(Q LL � _
I
C�9 UJ
Q1 :z
- I .r
i
i
ADO
{O.
I_ �• ,�. ..@ .. ,;rte` „O; �� ,
VAM
• i
i
ST]_vVM 4RY OF MODELED DR -A MOWS
-Zoo min�iumrelease
- _ June lily August Septemiber r Octob �-November
low at WRF 6.1�c s` 0 02 efs 0.00 cfs"-" 0.$8c s _.06 c s &.68 cffa
I'ow Location at which flow dropsbelow 1icated vafue
3 0.cfs, -- --
20.cfs ,
- - I 86
1.0 cfs• - -
0..0 cfs i0
�7upe my August 5epteinber --Octch'er weber
Flow CWRF 1-.35-cfs--
E1.02 cfs 0.95 cfs -9.94 cfs 206 cfs 4:68-cfs
low - Location at which flow drops below end cafedvalue
4.0 cfs _ - -
-
3.0 cfs
2.0 cfs - -,• �= -
--2 - -98
- - -- .. -
1.10 C6, __ 10 �_.__ _ _
0 cfs 64. __
Propose project_-- 1.7 cfs _
Minimum— ow _.ropo�e: �o,�
- -- ve uly� August September Oc obeF ovet�ber
Flow at. -2-.03-c - '1.72 cfs 1164 Ic fs --T-64.cTs---1, -06 cfs A.68 efs
Flow-
j 40�CPs - -_ --' - drops bel-ow ndicated valU
3.0 -��-
cfs: ----
-- -2 ¢
IL0 cfs. 53 +
U efs=- 99 i 63 - 54 : _ ---73 -+ --
_.BCS
I - _nl�n�►Ih Flow
• � - ;---June -- -- July �Augusr- Septe�•ber October November
Flow at WRF 3:33 cfs- `3.02 cfs - - -
2 94 cfs 2.94 cfs 4.68 pfs
Flowops bellow indicated valua -
4.0 cfs _ cation at which flow dr 73
__ ----
1'.0 cfs 11 f-- - -- -
-101 2 - 66- q� _ d
2, c s 66- =- 44- 33 52 .+ .. . �,� '
OA+cfs 7 101 -- —96 + +
Indicates.that flow never .reaches this value
+ Indicates that flow never drops below this value
USE OF TABLE: Example; For the proposed 1.7 cfs'Minimum _Pr*ttin.Juge.
Tho-flow immediately downstream of the'WRF is 2.03 cts, the flow drops below 2.0,ofs%at
swion 2, the flow drops below 1:0 cfs at station 59 and there 4s no flow•at station 99.
i2.9
1
-- -
7 !
,19
20
27 16 -
17 16 _ _ -
31
32'.
Agora St. 3- ..
Q�nter10-.4'6 '35
37
} hw8 101
---- ---------------
i1�ereha8bg- ; ,
4 Davenport Creek
4
,
20 21 a LaealtQn_oi ta381
W&M IM
5
i� N '�• Oak
Stream-QUAM&—WAftry
5- r_Rubt_ic�igad'Sbrvey
. 55 . SeClbu�
� 2.9
---'
------- - ------ _ -
64
6.
6
X69
San.�otg-Ba
74 73 11 Vis.
X75 ' -
77. 76. "
to 79...78
81 80
"82
100 83
84' .
98'
798 7
85
.
9ga 88 . . a moo
2 90' 'pot
Locations of Calculated stream Flow