HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/09/2000, 1 - SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT - PROJECT APPROVAL N council MRuxD.m- - --
Nov. 9, 2000
A ! Agan a Report I.N.6.
C I T Y OF SAN L U IS O B I S P O
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Directr`—
Prepared By: Gary W. He rsco: Water Division Manager 4,�
SUBJECT: SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT–PROJECT
APPROVAL
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, adopting the CEQA
Findings (including Statement of Overriding Considerations), approving the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and directing staff to file a Notice of Determination.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project as a
supplemental water supply project for many years. The project involves the installation of an
operable spillway gate in the existing dam which would raise the maximum water surface level
by 19 feet. The maximum reservoir capacity would be increased from approximately 23,843
acre feet (af) to 41,792 af. This additional storage would increase the safe annual yield available
to the City from the lake by 1,650 acre feet per year.
The City of San Luis Obispo and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jointly hold a water rights
permit (#5882) from the State Water Resources Control Board relative to the Salinas Reservoir.
The permit was issued in 1941 and allows for storage of up to 45,000 acre feet. Since the gates
were not installed at the time of construction the maximum storage rights allowed by the permit
have not been realized. In 1991, the City requested a time extension from the State Water
Resources Control Board (Board) relative to our permit. A protest was received from the
California Sports Fishing Alliance relative to the City's request and a hearing was held in
October of 1999 to resolve the issue. The City of Paso Robles was also a party to the hearings.
The Board has issued the final Order (WR 2000 – 13) on October 19, 2000 following extensive
hearings and review of submitted information. Numerous conditions were included in the Order
to address concerns and issues raised during the process. One of the conditions of the Order
requires the City to approve the project and file a Notice of Determination for the Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project within 25 days of the Board's adoption of the Order. This imposes
a mandatory, non-negotiable deadline of November 13, 2000 for the City to submit
documentation of the filing to the Chief of the Division of Water Rights.
1-1
Council Agenda Report: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Project Approval
Page 2
Environmental Impact Report Certification
The development of the environmental impact report (EIR) for the project was initiated in 1992.
The firm of Woodward-Clyde Consultants was hired by the City to prepare the necessary studies
and documentation. The initial draft EIR was released for public review and comment in
November of 1993 and numerous comments and concerns were raised by individuals and
interested agencies. Based on the comments received, the City Council directed staff to prepare a
revised draft EIR to address additional issues and areas of concern. The revised draft was
released for public comment in May of 1997 and the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)
for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project was certified by the City Council on June 2, 1998.
The project description as certified in the FEIR is shown below:
"The purpose and objectives of the proposed project are as follows: 1) to reduce the City
of San Luis Obispo's projected water supply deficit by approximately 1,650 acre feet per
year (AFY) on a safe annual yield basis; 2) to increase the total storage capacity of
Salinas Reservoir to provide the City greater flexibility in the use of its water resources,
particularly in times of drought or other emergency; and 3) to allow the City to enjoy the
benefits of its Water Rights Permit and to exercise its existing water rights thereunder by
installing an operable gate in the spillway of the existing dam."
Potential Project Impacts
The FEIR identified a number of potential environmental impacts associated with the project.
The impacts involve short-term construction related impacts as well as impacts associated with
inundation of areas around the lake due to the 19-foot rise. There was also an evaluation of
potential impacts to downstream resources relative to reductions in flows from the dam.
The FEIR assesses the potential impacts associated with implementation of the project and
includes measures to mitigate the predicted significant impacts to acceptable levels, as practical,
in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The main impacts that
cannot be mitigated in the short-term result from inundation of oak woodlands, riparian
woodlands, native grasslands, and stream/riparian areas. Strategies were developed to mitigate
these impacts in the long-term, but short-term impacts were still deemed significant until the
mitigation measures mature or establish to the point that the lost habitat is restored or offset. The
project would also result in a short-term significant impact due to a partial loss of public access
to the County Park for one season during the construction phase.
Mitigation Measures for Significant Impacts
The mitigation measures for the potentially significant impacts are set forth in the FEIR.
Implementation of the mitigations will reduce the majority of the impacts to a level of
insignificance. In addition, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order
Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time as adopted on October 19, 2000 includes a
condition that requires preparation of a Project Operations Plan which will eliminate the FEIR
1-Z
Council Agenda Report: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Project Approval
Page 3
finding of a significant cumulative impact on the over-drafted Paso Robles groundwater basin.
The most significant environmental impacts which cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance
in the short-term involve the oak and riparian woodlands inundation and the periodic inundation
of the lower reaches of the several creeks and Salinas River which flow into the lake.
The FEIR identifies that the increased water level, recreation facility relocation activities, and
dam base modification activities would impact habitats as follows: non-native grassland (191
acres), oak woodland (84 acres), riparian woodland/forest (16.1 acres), willow woodland (35.6
acres), freshwater marsh (0.9 acre), willow woodland understory (22.1 acres), and approximately
16,050 feet of streambed habitat. These habitats will be mitigated on an in-kind basis. Oak
woodland, riparian woodland, and freshwater marsh habitats will be mitigated on a 2:1 acreage
ratio; grassland, willow woodland, and streambed habitats would be mitigated on a 1:1 acreage
ratio. Hence,the required habitat replacement acreage or linear distance is as follows:
• Grassland 191 acres
• Oak woodland 168 acres
• Riparian woodlands 103 acres
• Freshwater marsh 1.8 acres
• Willow woodland understory 22.1 acres
• Streambed/aquatic habitat 16,050 feet* (* in conjunction with riparian woodland).
It is anticipated that grasslands, streambed/aquatic habitat and wetlands will be successfully
mitigated within 5 years. Mitigation of oak and riparian woodlands is expected to be successful
within 10 years. Until the mitigation efforts are deemed successful in accordance with the
performance criteria and agency reporting requirements specified in the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan, the project impacts are deemed to be significant.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
While the City has certified the FEIR for the project along with mitigation strategies, the
development of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Plan) is required prior to the City's
approval of the project and filing the Notice of Determination. The Plan which is required by
Assembly Bill 3180 has been developed and is included as Exhibit B of Attachment 1 to this
report. The Plan identifies the success criteria to be used for evaluating the mitigation measures
and the monitoring and reporting requirements that will be imposed to ensure that mitigation is
properly carried out. If performance goals are not met, replanting or reseeding will be required.
Woodlands - The success criteria developed in the Plan relative to oak and riparian woodland
restoration will require that at least 80% of the targeted acreage must be successfully restored or
enhanced by the 10'h year of monitoring. During the monitoring period,reporting, and replanting
or reseeding will occur each year until the objectives are achieved. Monitoring will continue for
3 years after the last planting. If any plantings fail to meet success criteria described in the Plan,
additional plantings or supplemental mitigation will be required.
1-3
Council Agenda Report: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Project Approval
Page 4
Grasslands - The Plan identifies that at least 50% of the targeted acreage of new or enhanced
self-sustaining grasslands in the oak woodland understory be well-established by the 5`h year of
monitoring. During the monitoring period, reporting, and replanting or reseeding will occur each
year until the objectives are achieved. Monitoring will continue for 2 years after the last
planting.
Aquatic Habitat/Wetlands- The final major areas of mitigation involve enhancement of
streambed/aquatic habitat areas to offset periodic inundation impacts on the lower reaches of
streams flowing into the lake, and restoration of freshwater marsh areas to compensate for project
construction impacts at the County Park and at the base of the dam. The Plan requires that
mitigation results in new or restored aquatic habitat in the region of similar magnitude to that
impacted. The Plan requires that at least 80% of the targeted freshwater marsh area be
successfully restored or enhanced. Monitoring will continue for 2 years after the last plantings in
wetland areas. If plantings fail to meet success criteria described in the Plan, additional plantings
or supplemental mitigation will be required.
Statement of Overriding Considerations
Since there are residual significant impacts even after implementation of the mitigation
measures, the City Council must make a statement of Overriding Considerations as part of its
approval of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project. This statement is included in Exhibit A to
the Resolution (Attachment 1) and is recommended for adoption by the City Council.
Legal Review
The Final Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project has been
reviewed by independent legal counsel for the City of San Luis Obispo. The Final
Environmental Impact Report along with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
adequately identify the mitigation measures that have been incorporated in the project. The
opinion of our legal counsel is that the EIR meets all the requirements of CEQA and counsel
concurs with the recommendation to adopt the findings, approve the Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan, adopt the statement of Overriding Considerations, approve the project and file
the Notice of Determination.
Dam Seismic Analysis
An issue that has arisen since the certification of the FEIR involves the structural analysis of the
dam. The firm of URS (formerly Woodward-Clyde) was hired by the City to update the analysis
prepared by Woodward-Clyde in 1989/90 based on the latest criteria of the State Division of
Safety of Dams (DSOD). An initial seismic study was conducted and the results were presented
to the City Council on July 18, 2000.
This study included changes in the design assumptions, based on conservative evaluations and
somewhat limited information. For example, the engineers opined that the existing dam (i.e.
1-4
Council Agenda Report: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Project Approval
Page 5
without the gates) would meet the current DSOD standards with minor remedial work. The
study also opined that the expanded dam, as proposed, would not meet DSOD standards and
would require strengthening measures prior to increasing the water level behind the dam.
Limited preliminary options for strengthening the dam were discussed but a thorough review of
all strengthening alternatives and associated costs were not part of the scope of work for the
studies.
Staff have discussed this preliminary report with our consultants as well as other dam safety
professionals. Based on these discussions and upon further scrutiny of certain assumptions upon
which the report was based, staff recommends further investigation and peer review. These
additional analyses are necessary to determine what design assumptions are valid and to evaluate
all potential strengthening measures in much more detail, should strengthening prove to be
necessary at all. It is feasible that a more detailed analysis and additional review of the design
assumptions could indicate that the existing dam structure could be expanded and meet State
design standards. If future studies reveal that the dam must be strengthened, supplemental
environmental review will likely be necessary to address any changes to the project description.
However this will not be known until additional studies and review are completed. At this time,
there is insufficient information available to warrant a change in the project description.
Summary
The City of San Luis Obispo has been pursuing the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project for
many years and extensive studies and evaluations have been undertaken to minimize potential
environmental impacts associated with project. The mitigation measures identified in the Final
EIR along with the success criteria, monitoring and reporting requirements identified in the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan will insure that project related impacts are mitigated
to the extent reasonably feasible.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development Department and the City Attorney concur with the
recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
The specific recommended action has minimal fiscal impact. There is a$25 filing fee associated
with the Notice of Determination and also an $850 fee to the Department of Fish and Game.
Additional project related studies, design, construction, and mitigation costs will be identified at
future stages as these items are brought forward for Council approval and funding.
ALTERNATIVES
Do not approve the project: Failure to approve the project and file the NOD will result in the
denial of the City's request for the time extension for our permit from the State Water Resources
1-5
Council Agenda Report: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Project Approval
Page 6
Control Board. The denial of the request for the time extension for the City's permit will result
in the City being unable to consider expanding the reservoir capacity under the existing water
rights permit. This alternative is not recommended.
Delay the approval of the project until additional seismic analysis is completed: Delaying
approval of the project and failure to file the Notice of Determination by November 13, 2000 will
result in the denial of the City's request for the time extension for our permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board. The denial of the request for the time extension for the City's
permit will result in the City being unable to consider expanding the reservoir capacity under the
existing water rights permit. This alternative is not recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution Approving the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, Making an Additional
Environmental Determination, and Directing that a Notice of Determination be Filed
Exhibits to Attachment 1:
A. Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Statement of
Overriding Considerations
B. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
1-6
111MING o -oo AGENDA !
.TE _SEM . _,
mcraAALWre
O CC^r'3
RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE SAL.INAS DAM HAS WORSE IMAT THEor-.:rl:
CITY OF SLO HAS DISCLOSED Y ❑FV1G:,"1
IG ❑POUC-c C:;?
DIR
by Marge Erickson r GYOTILDIR
❑PERS DIR
The City of San Luis Obispo thinks it needs more water to A"ejVen;cn
accommodate future planned growth . In order to get more water , the
City proposes to raise the height of the Salinas Dam by 19 feet .
While that might not seem much , the scope of the project is
immense . The capacity of the dam would be increased 75% from-
23 , 843 acre feet to 41 , 792 acre feet . The project would result in
periodic inundation of an additional 395 acres of wetlands ,
riparian habitat and oak woodlands , including 16 ,050 linear feet
of stream habitat , 73 acres of pine-oak woodland containing 1639
coast live oaks , 633 blue oaks , and 198 valley oaks , for a total
of 2470 oak trees , plus 469 gray pines . Also included in the
periodic innundation zone are 35 .6 acres of willow scrub/woodland ,
3 .9 acres of mixed riparian woodland , 12 .2 acres of riparian
forest , and degradation of 22 . 1 acres of riparian woodland
understory owing to periodic innundation .
The area to be inundated by the raised dam and disturbed by the
relocation of recreational resources contains many species of
special concern , such as the Southwestern Pond Turtle and the Two-
Striped Garter Snake , as well as several federally and state
endangered and threatened species , including the Bald Eagle ,
California Condor , White-tailed Kite , American Peregrine Falcon ,
Least Bell 's Vireo , Southwestern Willow Flycatcher , California Red-
legged Frog . Although the City claims that there are no threatened
Steelhead Trout below the dam, recent evidence suggests otherwise ,
and until the dam was built , they were abundant in the Salinas
River .
In connection with the project , virtually all of the current
recreational facilities surrounding the lake will be moved , with
new roads to be built and considerable cut-and-fill operations to
be undertaken .
In order to accommodate the increased capacity of Santa Margarita
Lake, the dam will need to be substantially strengthened and the
spillway will need to be armored .
Before the City can undertake the project as planned , it must
obtain an extension of time to complete the beneficial use granted
in its water rights permit in 1941 . The State Water Resources
Control Board will shortly issue its decision regarding granting
the City another 10 years to complete the project . .
In June 1998 , the City certified a Final Environmental Impact
Report . But the FEIR does not adequately address concern
adverse impacts to habitat above and below the dam, incr ase EIVED
NOV 0 9 2000
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 1
���� SLO CITY CLERK
Gj�"��
seismic vulnerability because the of greatly increased volume of
water to be impounded behind the dam, adverse impacts to
downstream water users , and the growth-inducing effects of the
added water supply . To some extent , the State Water Resources
Control Board has . recognized these deficiencies and is expected to
order additional studies before it will grant the City an
extension of time to increase the height of the dam.
The City 's Plans To Mitigate for Lost Habitat Are Inadequate and
Illusory
The City recognizes that the law requires it to mitigate the
detrimental impacts to the environment that the dam project will
cause . However , it has not yet developed any tangible mitigation
plans for the loss of riparian habitat and wetlands , and admits
that any habitat restoration or creation will not reach fruition
until 5 to 15 years after they are begun . The endangered and
threatened species will have nowhere to be in the interim, and may
be lost forever .
Although the City claims it will develop a mitigation plan that
will rely on restoring and/or enhancing native habitats on nearby
private lands with willing landowners , thus far no land has been
contracted . Currently , the only property the City is attempting to
acquire is 49 acres of steep , not-in-kind habitat out of the
Salinas watershed and 15 miles from the project , property that
cannot provide the habitat that will be destroyed by the project .
Even worse . there is some evidence that the City in fact will
attempt to avoid its obligation to replace destroyed habitat by
offering monetary compensation to public or private agencies , as
if money can mitigate destruction of habitat and species .
Seismic Concerns
Recently the City received a Dam Safety Evaluation Study
undertaken in order to meet the requirements of the California
Department of Water Resources , Division of Safety of Dams
requirements . This report concludes that the FEIR did not
accurately consider the magnitude of earthquake possible along the
Rinconada fault . The study concluded that the dam will be
seismically unsafe unless it is strengthened beyond the degree of
strengthening contemplated in the FEIR, increasing the cost of the
project by $11 , 000 , 000 or over 50%.
The City Did Not Plan To Mitigate for the Decreased Amount of
Water it Would Be Releasing Downstream
Although the City claims the increased size of the dam will have
no impact or only minimal impact on the river downstream, both the
State Water Resources Control Board and the National Marine
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 2
t
Fisheries Service has determined otherwise . In its draft order .
the SWRCB concluded that the raised dam will contribute to the
overdraft in the Paso Robles groundwater basin . The SWRCB also
noted that it could not conclude that there were no Steelhead in
the river below the dam or that the project would not adversely
impact any steelhead that might be present .
In addition , the National Marine Fisheries Service is also
concerned with the downstream impacts of even the current
operation of the Dam and is requesting the SWRCB to order interim
releases of water .
This Project Will Induce Growth and Development .
The stated purpose of the project is to provide the City with an
additional 1650 acre feet of water per year (AFY) . The City
projects that it will require 3861 AFY of water by the year 2022
to meet growth projections . This project is projected to supply
43% of that anticipated need . That 1650 AFY could easily be
supplied by water conservation and by buying up state water rights
that are currently available . In fact , however , the project will
supply an additional 2000 AFY for increased reserves , which can
potentially provide for more growth than the City claims . ,
The FEIR projects that raising the dam will provide water to
accommodate a portion of the City 's planned growth between now and
2022 . The FEIR projects water need at 145 gallons of water per
person per day , which would allow for 5000 additional people .
However , the current water usage is 123 gallons per person per
day. If current water use rema.ins the same , the water contemplated
by this project can accommodate an additional 12 ,000 people . If
the 2000 AFY is used , then over 25 ,000 additional people could be
accommodated . m
Marge Erickson is an attorney (for 20 years) in Santa Barbara with
a keen interest in environmental issue . She is a board member of
the Santa Barbara Permaculture Network and volunteers legal help
for local environmental organizations .
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 3
Attachment 1 —
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE SALINAS RESERVOIR PROJECT, MAKING AN ADDITIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, AND DIRECTING
THAT A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION BE FILED
WHEREAS, on June 2, 1998, the City Council adopted a resolution Certifying the
Environmental Impact Report for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project (SCH No.
92071018); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Exhibit B) has been
prepared which addresses the implementation, monitoring, and reporting requirements for the
mitigation measures presented in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), including
Appendix D (Biological Mitigation Plan Approach); and
WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) issued an Order
Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time, as adopted October 19, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the SWRCB's Order Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time (as
adopted October 19, 2000) on the City's water rights permit petition requires (among other
conditions) the City to prepare a Project Operations Plan (for expanded reservoir) to avoid
any increases to existing overdraft conditions in the Paso Robles groundwater basin.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. The City council finds that the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project as
currently defined is the same as the project described in the EIR and that the EIR adequately
analyzes the environmental impacts of the project.
SECTION 2. The City Council finds that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR
mitigate the environmental impacts of the project to the extent feasible. The City also
commits to implementing the additional mitigation measures and conditions imposed by the
SWRCB in their order Granting an Extension of Time (as adopted October 19, 2000).
SECTION 3. The City Council finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Plan (Exhibit B) adequately addresses the mitigation measures and effort-envisioned by the
previously certified Final EIR.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the project has the potential to provide a
minor contribution to the existing overdraft in the Paso Robles groundwater basin which
would constitute a significant cumulative impact as discussed in the FEIR. However, the
C:IWINDOWSIDESKTOPIRESOLUTION.DOC -1- 1-7
Attachment 1 —R
SWRCB's requirement for a Project Operations Plan to be prepared and implemented will
avoid any cumulative impacts.
SECTION 5. The City Council finds that the project will provide supplemental water
needed to reduce the City of San Luis Obispo's projected water supply deficit by
approximately 1650 acre feet per year on a safe annual yield basis.
SECTION 6. The City Council approves the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project,
incorporating the EIR-recommended mitigation measures, the SWRCB-recommended
mitigation measures and conditions, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (Exhibit
B), the CEQA Findings (Exhibit A), and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Exhibit
A) and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination indicating that the project has been
approved.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of November 2000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
r 1 �
re . Jor ens , Cit<Attorney
C1WIND0WSTESKT0R%S0LUT10N.D0C -2- 1-8
Exhibit A-1
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR APPROVAL OF
THE SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
(November,2000)
1.0 FINDINGS UNDER CEQA
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21081 AND THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15090,
15091, AND 15093:
The Council of the City of San Luis Obispo (City Council) adopts the following Findings and
Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to Sections of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) in connection with its approval of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion
Project. The City's adoption of these Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations is
based on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 92071018) for
the above-mentioned project.
In addition to the EIR, these Findings adopted by the City Council include consideration of
the following:
• Summary Mitigation Plan(Attachment 1 to these Findings).
• Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) (see discussion in Section 1.10 of
these Findings) (MMRP is a separate document [Exhibit B to Resolution]).
• Mitigation conditions imposed by the State Water Resources Control Board in their Order
Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time, as adopted October 19, 2000. The SWRCB
conditions are reflected in the Summary Mitigation Plan and the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan.
• Additional studies to be completed prior to project implementation(see Section 1.4).
The City Council has approved and adopted the Summary Mitigation Plan, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the Conditions imposed in the SWRCB Order
Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time (as adopted by the SWRCB on
October 19, 2000). The City Council has also resolved that the additional studies listed in
Section 1.4 will be completed prior to project implementation.
CAWINDOWNESUORMA FINDING.DOC -1- 1-9
9 1 - !
Exhibit A-;;t—
1.1 CERTIFICATION OF THE EIR
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was presented to each member of the City
Council who reviewed and considered the EIR and its appendices prior to certifying the EIR
and prior to project approval. In addition, the City Council reviewed the administrative
record and considered public comment and testimony concerning the proposed project. The
City Council conducted a public hearing on the Final EIR on June 2, 1998. City of San Luis
Obispo Resolution No. 9812 documents the City Council's Certification of the EIR,
including the City Council members' votes.
1.2 FULL DISCLOSURE
The City Council finds and certifies that the Final EIR (May, 1998) constitutes a complete,
accurate, adequate, and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA. A summary of the
public review process for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project EIR follows:
As required by Section 15126 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations), the EIR focuses on potentially
significant issues, including issues of apparent public and regulatory agency concern. The
Notice of Preparation (NOP)/Initial Study regarding CEQA compliance and EIR preparation
for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project was issued by the City of San Luis Obispo (as
CEQA Lead Agency) on June 29, 1992. Comments received on the NOP/Initial Study and at
public "scoping" meetings held on July 22, 1992 in Santa Margarita and in the City of San
Luis Obispo were considered, as appropriate, in the EIR. In addition, an initial Draft EIR for
the project was issued in November 1993 and a Revised Draft EIR was issued in May 1997.
Oral comments were received on the initial Draft EIR at two public hearings which were held
at the City of San Luis Obispo Council Chambers and at the Centennial Park facility in Paso
Robles on December 14 and 15, 1993, respectively. Additionally, oral comments were
received on the Revised Draft EIR at two public hearings which were held at the Atascadero
Lake Pavilion and the City of San Luis Obispo Council Chambers on July 9 and 10, 1997,
respectively.
Comments received at the public hearings held for the initial and Revised Draft EIRs as well
as written comments are considered and addressed in the Final EIR. The City Council
certified the Final EIR at a public hearing at City Council Chambers on June 2, 1998.
1.3 LOCATION OF DOCUMENTS
The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this
decision is based are in the custody of the Utilities Department, City of San Luis Obispo.
CAWINDOWSIDESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -2- 1-10
I \
Exhibit A-3
1.4 ADDITIONAL STUDIES TO BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
The City Council has resolved that several additional studies will be performed and
completed prior to project implementation. The additional studies are required to fulfill
mitigation requirements specified in the Final EIR or to comply with conditions imposed by
the SWRCB Order Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time as adopted on October 19,
2000. Based on the results of the forthcoming additional studies, the City may revise the
mitigation plans and/or amend or supplement the Final EIR, as appropriate.
Future Studies and Plans to Complete Project
• National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance related studies associated with
property transfer from federal to local control.
• Further seismic analysis and peer review of URS study to resolve dam strength issues.
• Final engineering design studies and Division of Safety of Dams review and approvals
related to dam modifications to allow expansion of reservoir storage capacity from about
23,843 acre feet to 41,792 acre feet.
• Final Recreation and Facility Relocation Plan, including Construction Recreation Plan
component.
• To implement the Habitat Mitigation Plan described in Appendix D of the Final EIR,
Mitigation Site Specific Restoration/Enhancements Plans for sites to be selected for
mitigation of biological impacts due to reservoir inundation.
• Pre-construction Spring survey for red-legged frog along Alamo Creek and, if found,
develop a long-term management program to protect the population.
Studies and Plans to Comply with SWRCB Conditions (10/19/00)
• Project Operations Plan specifying how the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project will
avoid contributions to the overdraft conditions in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.
• A plan for conducting: 1) a population study to determine the occurrence of steelhead
between the Salinas Dam and Highway 58; 2) a water temperature study to determine if
there are temperatures adequate for summer rearing of steelhead between the Salinas
Dam and Highway 58; and 3) if feasible, a stream habitat survey in the stretch of the
Salinas River not previously surveyed between the Salinas Dam and Highway 58. If
warranted, a plan for geomorphologic studies to identify the stream flows necessary to
maintain the habitat diversity of the river channel downstream of the Salinas Reservoir
dam to the Highway 58 Bridge.
CAWINDOWSMESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -3-
Exhibit ` _q
1.5 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
UNAVOIDABLE AND ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
REASONABLY FEASIBLE
The SWRCB Order Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time as adopted on October 19,
2000 also imposes other requirements for developing compliance plans and obtaining
SWRCB approvals. These items are reflected in the Summary Mitigation Plan, the separate
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan, and the overall Findings herein.
The City Council finds, based upon the evidence presented to it in the EIR and in the
testimony and comments in the record, that significant environmental impacts of the Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project have been mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. The
impact findings include consideration of the mitigation measures specified in the Summary
Mitigation Plan (Attachment 1 to these Findings), and the separate Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan. Notwithstanding the imposition of feasible mitigation measures, certain
environmental impacts of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance and, therefore, are considered to be unavoidable. These impacts are:
1) Vegetation (inundation of 73 acres of pine-oak woodland); 2) Vegetation (inundation of
51.7 acres of wetland and riparian woodlands, and periodic inundation of 22.1 acres of
riparian woodland understory); 3) Vegetation (clearing and disturbance of 11 acres of oak
woodland and 0.5 acre of freshwater marsh during the construction phase, including
relocation of facilities at the County Park); 4) wildlife (inundation of 51.7 acres of riparian
and wetland habitat on the eastern end of the reservoir); 5) aquatic ecology (inundation and
conversion of about 16,000 feet of streambed habitat in tributaries to Salinas Reservoir);
6) aquatic ecology (potential impacts on red-legged frogs along Alamo Creek, if present),-
7)
resent);7) recreation resources (short term loss of public access to County Park during construction
phase); and 8) cumulative impacts (contribution to cumulative impacts on biological
resources in Salinas River Planning Area). As discussed in the EIR, the City has committed
to implement substantial biological mitigation (e.g., Habitat Mitigation Plan in Appendix D
of Final EIR) which is expected to reduce identified significant impacts to levels of
insignificance over time once the mitigation measures are successful. Additionally, the City
has committed to perform the additional biologic and hydrologic studies required by the
SWRCB Order (dated October 19, 2000). The City also intends to comply with the
endangered species act. The City has also committed to implement substantial mitigation
(Recreation and Facility Relocation Plan in Appendix B of the EIR) and forthcoming
Construction Recreation Plan to mitigate recreation impacts at the County Park. The adverse
recreation impacts at the County Park will be short term and limited to the construction
phase. In the long term, recreation facilities and Park traffic circulation are expected to be
improved due to implementation of the City's Recreation and Facility Relocation Plan.
To the extent that impacts remain significant and unavoidable, the impacts are acceptable
when weighted against the overriding social, economic, legal, technical and other
considerations, including providing a long-term source of additional water to help reduce the
City's projected future water supply district. The City Council's Statement of Overriding
Considerations for these unavoidable significant impacts is presented in Section 1.9 of the
Findings.
CAWINDOWSIDESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC 4- 1-12
Exhibit A-!
1.5 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
UNAVOIDABLE AND ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
REASONABLY FEASIBLE (CONTINUED)
The unavoidable significant impacts identified in the Final EIR are discussed below, along
with the appropriate findings as per CEQA Guidelines Section 15091.
Vegetation
(1) Impacts: Construction of the proposed project would result in potential adverse effect to
botanical resources in the approximate 395 acre inundation zone including loss of 84 acres of
pine-oak woodland containing approximately 2,470 oak trees (1,639 coast live oaks, 633 blue
oaks, and 198 valley oaks) and 469 gray pines and 191 acres of grassland habitat.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final EIR and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to address said
vegetation impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures include
implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program, which results in 146 acres of new or enhanced
woodlands. Oak woodland habitats would be mitigated on a 2:1 acreage ratio. Grasslands
would be mitigated on a 1:1 ratio. See mitigation measure BIO-1 in Summary Mitigation
Plan.
(1) Findings: It has been determined that a residual significant impact will exist after
mitigation until the new woodlands and grasslands are functionally self-sustaining after
which, impacts are insignificant.
(2) Impacts: The proposed project would also result in potential adverse effects due to an
estimated net loss associated with inundation of 51.7 acres of wetland and riparian
woodlands (35.6 acres of willow scrub/woodland, 3.9 acres of mixed riparian woodland,
12.2 acres of riparian forest), and the degradation of 22.1 acres of riparian woodland
understory due to periodic inundation.
(2) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) EIR to address said
vegetation impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures include
implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program. See mitigation measure BIO-1 in Summary
Mitigation Plan.
(2) Findings: Impacts are determined to be Significant to Insignificant ("Significant" until
the mitigation [see MMRP] results in 103 acres of self-sustaining, functional riparian
woodland and 22.1 acres of riparian woodland understory via implementation of
enhancement/restoration measures; expected to require about 5 years; insignificant
thereafter).
CAWINDOWSTESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -5- 1-13
Exhibit A-6
1.5 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
UNAVOIDABLE AND ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
REASONABLY FEASIBLE (CONTINUED)
(3) Impacts: The proposed project would result in potential adverse impacts to vegetation
due to clearing and disturbance during the construction phase, including relocation of
recreational facilities and roadways in the County Park (including about 11 acres of oak
woodland and 0.5 acre of freshwater marsh).
(3) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final EIR and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to address said
vegetation impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures include
implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program. See mitigation measure BIO-1 in Summary
Mitigation Plan.
(3) Findings: Impacts are determined to be Significant to Insignificant ("Significant" until
the mitigation results in 22 acres of new or enhanced woodlands and 1.0 acre of freshwater
marsh that are self-sustaining; expected to require about 10 years for the oak woodland and
5 years for the freshwater marsh; after which impact levels would be insignificant).
Wildlife
(1) Impacts: The project would result in potential adverse impacts on sensitive vertebrate
species in the approximate 395 acre inundation zone, including sensitive obligate riparian
bird species (e.g., breeding habitat of yellow warbler) in the 51.7 acres (net) of riparian and
wetland habitat that would be lost on the eastern (upstream) end of the reservoir.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final EIR and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to address said
vegetation impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures include
implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program. See mitigation measure 13I0-1 in Summary
Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Impacts are determined to be Significant to Insignificant ("Significant" until
the mitigation results in 103 acres of self-sustaining, functional riparian vegetation via
implementation of enhancement/restoration measures; expected to require about 5 years,
after which the impact level would be insignificant).
Aquatic Ecology(Inundation)
(1) Impacts: The project would result in potential adverse inundation effects due to
conversion of approximately 16,000 feet of streambed habitat (Salinas River, Alamo Creek,
Chaparral Creek, Salsipuedes Creek, Toro Creek, and several unnamed tributaries) from
intermittent stream habitat to more regularly flooded stream or pool habitat.
CAWINDOW&DESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -6- 1-14
\ Exhibit
A-`i
1.5 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
UNAVOIDABLE AND ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
REASONABLY FEASIBLE (CONTINUED)
(1) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final EIR and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) to address said
streambed habitat impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures
include implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program. See mitigation measure 13I0-1 in
Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Impacts are determined to be Significant to Insignificant ("Significant" unless
and until the mitigation results in new or restored aquatic habitat in the region of similar
magnitude; expected to require about 5 years, after which the impact level would be
insignificant).
Recreation Resources
(1) Impacts: Construction of the proposed project, including the relocation of recreational
facilities and roadways in the County Park would result in short-term significant impacts on
recreational opportunities and use during the construction phase due to expected partial park
closures for public safety.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the Recreation and Facility Relocation Plan
(see Appendix B of Final EIR) will fully mitigate long term impacts to the County Park. The
forthcoming Construction Recreation Plan will mitigate short term construction phase
impacts at the County Park to the extent practical. See mitigation measure REC-1 in
Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Significant(short-term); Insignificant in long-term.
Cumulative Impacts
(1) Impacts: Contribution to short-term cumulative impacts on biological resources in the
Salinas River Planning Area.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures have been identified from the Final EIR and
included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan(MMRP) to address said biological
resource impacts to the maximum extent feasible. These mitigation measures include
implementing a Habitat Mitigation Program.
(1) Findings: Significant to Insignificant ("Significant" until the biological resources
mitigation is successful).
(2) Impacts: Incremental contribution to cumulative impact on existing overdraft condition
in the Paso Robles groundwater basin.
CAWINDOWMEWORCE0A FINDINGLOC -7- 1-15
Exhibit A-8
1.5 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE
UNAVOIDABLE AND ARE MITIGATED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
REASONABLY FEASIBLE (CONTINUED)
(2) Mitigation Measures: (a) offer to participate in development of basin management plan;
(b) prepare and submit to SWRCB a Project Operations Plan specifying how the project will
avoid contributing to the overdraft condition.
(2) Findings: Insignificant.
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The Final EIR identified several subject areas for which the project is considered to have the
potential to cause or contribute to significant environmental impacts that can be reduced to
insignificant levels by incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project
approval. The City Council finds that the following potentially significant impacts have been
reduced to the level of insignificance as a result of the mitigation measures incorporated into
the project approval_ Each of the mitigable impacts is discussed below along with the
appropriate findings as per CEQA Section 15091.
Soils and Topography
(1) Impacts: Construction activities associated primarily with relocation of recreation
facilities in the County Park would disturb approximately 25 acres of soils and topography,
including cut-and-fill of approximately 150,000 cubic yards of material; the areas to be
disturbed include moderately to highly erodible soils that could be subject to accelerated
erosion following construction.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement soil erosion and sediment control measures as
necessary during construction; following construction, perform reclamation and revegetation
of disturbed areas; perform monitoring of reclaimed/revegetated areas and implement
supplemental corrective measures in problem erosion areas, as applicable. See mitigation
measures SOILS-I through SOILS-6 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
Geology
(1) Impacts: Seismically-induced damage to the right abutment of the dam related to severe
groundshaking of the potentially unstable right abutment bedrock.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement the proposed remedial measures to strengthen the right
abutment such as installation of post tensioned rock anchors (or other appropriate means) as
determined during the planned detailed engineering analysis(in accordance with Division of
Safety of Dams requirements). See GEO-DAM SAFETY in Summary Mitigation Plan.
CAWINDOWS\DESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -8- 1-16
Exhibit A-1
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impacts: Seismically-induced damage due to ground failure at the relocated recreational
facility and roadway areas that are on newly created fill.
(2) Mitigation Measures: In areas to be filled, use blended fill which is at least 2 parts
sandstone to 1 part mudstone to mitigate concerns regarding the use of mudstone. Clayey
soils should be blended with sandstone and/or treated with lime to minimize shrink-swell
potential. Compaction of local fill materials should be accomplished wet of optimum. See
mitigation measure GE04 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(2).Findings: Insignificant.
(3) Impacts: Scour-related damage to the dam base as a result of dam overtopping during a
major flood.
(3) Mitigation Measures: Install concrete armoring over an approximate 0.4 acre area at the
base of the dam to preclude scouring damage in accordance with the proposed project design.
See mitigation measure GEO-DAM SAFETY in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(3) Findings: Insignificant.
(4) Impacts: Seepage related damage to the left abutment of the dam associated with
increased reservoir level/pressure and movement of water through fractures in the abutment
bedrock.
(4) Mitigation Measures: Implement the proposed remedial grouting program prior to
raising the reservoir level and/or monitor seepage and perform grouting, as necessary. See
mitigation measure GEO-2 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(4) Findings: Insignificant.
(5) Impacts: Damage to relocated recreational facilities and roadways in the County Park
due to slope failure in cutslope areas.
(5) Mitigation Measures: Employ conservative design of cutslope inclinations including
constructing benches in any cutslopes greater than 25 to 30 feet in height-, limit cutslopes to
no steeper than 2:1 horizontal to vertical in sandstone, 2.5:1 in mudstone, and 3:1 in clayey
colluvial soils. Prepare detailed grading and slope stabilization/restoration plans during the
detailed design phase for implementation during the construction phase. Perform all cut-and-
fill operations under the supervision of a qualified geotechnical engineer. See mitigation
measure GEO-3 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
C:IWINDOWSIDESKTORCEOAFINDING.DOC -9- 1-17
/ Exhibit A-10
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
(5) Findings: Insignificant.
(6) Impacts: Induced-landslide related slope failure and endangerment of public safety due
to inundation and saturation of existing landslide areas.
(6) Mitigation Measures: Implement slope stabilization measures (if deemed necessary
during the final design phase), monitor slope stability in areas of concern following the
construction phase, and implement additional stabilization/safety measures until any
remaining unstable areas are stabilized, as appropriate. See mitigation measure GEO-1 in
Summary Mitigation Plan.
(6) Findings: Insignificant.
Air Quality
(1) Impacts: Exceedance of San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District's
(SLOAPCD) significance threshold criteria for NO,, and PM10 emissions during the
construction phase of the project. No project-related air emissions are expected to occur
during the operational phase.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement Best Available Control Technology (BACT) measures
for NO,, emissions in accordance with the SLOAPCD's specifications for projects that will
move 50,000 cubic yards of material (or more) within any 3 month period, and the
SLOAPCD's "additional measures". Implement the SLOAPCD's measures for mitigating
PM10 emissions for projects that exceed 4.0 acres of grading in a quarter. See mitigation
measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
Water Resources/Quality
(1) Impact: Temporary construction related deterioration of surface water quality in Salinas
Reservoir and the Salinas River due to project related erosion and sedimentation.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement erosion control and stabilization procedures for all
disturbed areas and construct siltation/sedimentation basins or control structures, as
appropriate. See mitigation measure WATER-1 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1)Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impacts: Deterioration of surface water and/or groundwater quality due to accidental
spills of fuel,lubricants, or hazardous materials during the construction or operational phase.
CANNDOWSIDESKTORMA FINDING.DOC -10- 1-18
Exhibit A'1 I
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
(2) Mitigation Measures: Design, construct, and operate all facilities or operations in
accordance with applicable regulations; perform refueling and maintenance of construction
equipment only in designated lined and bermed areas; prior to initiation of construction,
prepare spill contingency plans for implementation, if necessary. See mitigation measure
WATER-2 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(2) Findings: Insignificant.
(3) Impacts: Potential adverse hydrologic or hydrogeologic effects in the Salinas River area
downstream from the reservoir due to decreases in downstream flows during the winter
months of above normal rainfall years. The worst-case incremental project related average
annual reduction in downstream flow based on computer model simulations is 2041 acre feet
for the period of record from 1972-1995 and 1841 acre feet for the period of record from
1943-1995. The average annual flows at selected downstream points using the 1972-1995
period of record with and without the project are:
Average Flow Average Flow
Location Without Project(AFY) With Project(AFY)
Base of Dam 14,927 12,886
Atascadero 27,614 25,647
Paso Robles 72,547 70,579
Bradley 360,726 358.759
Spreckels 305,361 303,393
The maximum possible annual incremental reduction in downstream flow is 17,949 AF. The
average annual reduction in groundwater levels in shallow and deep wells in Atascadero
based on historical groundwater data and computer modeling is estimated to be 0.14 and 0.46
feet, respectively. The maximum annual incremental reductions in shallow and deep wells in
Atascadero are estimated to be 1.54 and 4.15 feet, respectively. Groundwater impacts would
be less discernible downstream of Atascadero.
(3) Mitigation Measures: The SWRCB's Order Conditionally Granting an Extension of
Time (as adopted October 19, 2000) on the City's water rights petition requires that the City
prepare a Project Operations Plan (for expanded reservoir) to avoid any contribution to the
overdraft condition of the Paso Robles groundwater basin. See mitigation measure
WATER-3 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(3) Findings: Project-specific flow reductions are not expected to be significant, however,
the cumulative effects of the overall surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals
by all downstream users could be considered significant. With implementation of the
SWRCB ordered Project Operations Plan, the cumulative contribution of the Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project would be insignificant.
CAWINDOWSTESKTOPICEOA FINDING.DOC _11- 1-19
Exhibit Alz--
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
Vegetation
(1) Impacts: Potential adverse effects due to inundation of two Hickman's checkerbloom
plants (CNPS List 113, Rare or Endangered California and elsewhere) near the mouth of
Chaparral Creek; this species is rare in San Luis Obispo County.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Re-establish these plants in suitable habitat above the inundation
zone prior to raising the dam. See mitigation measure BIO-2 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
Aquatic Ecology(Downstream)
(1) Impacts: Potential adverse effects on downstream aquatic resources due to project-
related flow reductions in the winter months of wet years. Continuation of the "live stream
agreement" is expected to protect downstream water users and aquatic resources during
periods of low flow. The assessment conducted for the EIR concluded that no adverse
impacts to downstream aquatic habitats would occur due to project related reductions in spill
frequency and amount. Therefore, no significant impacts on downstream aquatic ecology
would be expected to occur. The proposed project would not adversely affect steelhead that
either use the mainstem of the river below the dam for migration, or that use the mainstem
for spawning and rearing habitat because of the following reasons. The project would only
affect the magnitude and frequency of the spill events. During non-spill years, which account
for most years, there would be no change in the amount or timing of downstream flows.
Additionally, the average reduction in the depth and velocity of flows downstream of the
dam during spill events were estimated to be less than two inches and one foot per second
respectively. These reductions are not large enough to adversely affect the ability of the
steelhead to migrate upstream to tributaries below the dam, particularly because the effect of
reduced spills would be attenuated with distance from the dam. Finally, the reduction in spill
frequency and amount is not expected to adversely affect potential spawning and rearing
habitat along the mainstem below the dam because the effect on spills would typically occur
early in the wet season prior to spawning and rearing activities.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Although the Final EIR concluded that the proposed project
would not adversely impact downstream aquatic resources, including steelhead, the SWRCB
has ordered the following mitigation to make sure that the downstream habitat is not
adversely impacted. Conduct additional biologic and hydrologic studies downstream of the
dam between Salinas Dam and Highway 58 to assess whether suitable habitat for steelhead
spawning and rearing is present and, if so, what flows are necessary to maintain habitat
diversity in the channel. In addition, consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service
regarding steelhead. See mitigation measure BIO-1 (refer to additional SWRCB measures) in
CAWIN00WSUESKT0PXCEOA FINDING.DOC -12- 1-20
Exhibit A--15
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
Summary Mitigation Plan. Implementation of any forthcoming SWRCB conditions based on
the results of additional hydrologic and biologic studies to be performed between the dam
and the Highway 58 bridge (required by the SWRCB) are expected to preclude significant
impacts due to project effects.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impact: The California red-legged frog is a state and federal endangered species and may
be present at the reservoir and/or its tributaries (i.e., Alamo Creek); one adult frog was found
during the 1992 surveys but none were found in 1996. The general absence of this species, or
its apparent small population, may be due to the predatory effects of the introduced bullfrogs
and sunfish that reside in the lake. Increasing the water level in the lake would extend
suitable habitat for the bullfrog and sunfish up Alamo Creek and other tributaries to the lake.
Increasing the habitat for the bullfrog could adversely affect any population of red-legged
frog that may still exist along the upper reaches of Alamo Creek and other tributaries to the
lake. This impact is considered potentially significant. The actual magnitude of this impact or
its probability cannot be predicted. It is possible that the red-legged frog is absent from the
Salinas River, and that the population along Alamo Creek is very small or non-existent.
(2) Mitigation Measures: Implement an intensive survey in the Spring preceding the
initiation of construction to locate and assess the red-legged frog population, if present, along
Alamo Creek. If present, develop and implement a long-term management program to
monitor and protect the population using aquatic habitat improvement measures, predator
control, and possibly installation of an in-stream barrier to limit predator (i.e., bullfrog)
access. See mitigation measure BIO-4 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(2) Findings: With implementation of mitigation, the potential impacts to this species would
be expected to be reduced to a level of insignificance. If red-legged frogs are indeed still
present and the proposed mitigation is unsuccessful, adverse affects on any remaining
individuals would be considered significant.
Land Use
Construction and operation of the proposed project would be expected to be consistent with
A the identified County plans, goals, and policies that would be potentially applicable to the
project. No significant land use impacts are expected.
Recreation Resources
Implementation of the proposed project will result in inundation of the existing County Park
facilities and roadways. The proposed Salinas Reservoir Recreation and Facility Relocation
Plan (see Appendix B of the FEIR) will replace the inundated facilities. With implementation
Q%WINDOWS%DESKT0*'TEOA ANDING.DOC -13- 1-21
�01 Exhibit A-11
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
of the proposed Recreation and Facility Relocation Plan, no long-term significant recreation
impacts are expected.
Visual and Aesthetics
(1) Impacts: Degradation of visual quality in areas to be graded in the County Park
(associated with recreational facility and roadway relocations) until denuded areas are
revegetated.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement measures recommended to mitigate impacts to soils
and vegetation (i.e., stabilization, reclamation, and revegetation of disturbed areas [except
rocky areas]).
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impacts: Potential long-term adverse visual impacts associated with the presence of dead
trees in the inundation zone.
(2) Mitigation Measures: Remove dead trees in the inundation zone following project
implementation if the County determines that the trees constitute an adverse visual impact;
removal to be selective and limited to sensitive viewing areas (unless removal is warranted
for other reasons such as to reduce navigational hazards to boats).
(2) Findings: Insignificant.
Traffic and Circulation
(1) Impacts: Potential short-term adverse traffic related impacts during the construction
phase due to commuting workers and material/equipment truck deliveries (up to 100 per day)
through the town of Santa Margarita and within the County Park.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Stipulate that the construction contractor must require strict
adherence to applicable speed limits (to increase safety, reduce noise and vibration, and
reduce dust generation), and use flagmen within the County Park to direct traffic during the
construction phase. Refer to mitigation measure TRAFFIC-1 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
Noise
(1) Impacts: Potential short-term adverse noise impacts due to truck traffic during the
construction phase in the town of Santa Margarita and at the County Park.
CANNDOWMEWORCEOA FINDING.DOC -14- 1-22
\ Exhibit A_�s
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
(1) Mitigation Measures: Limit construction related truck traffic to weekdays between 7:00
AM and 8:00 PM, and require the construction contractor to utilize adequate mufflers on
trucks and applicable construction equipment. Refer to mitigation measures NOISE-1 and
NOISE-2 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1)Findings: Insignificant.
Cultural Resources
(1) Impacts: Impacts to significant cultural resources due to inundation or direct disturbance
during earth moving activities.
(1) Mitigation Measures: Mitigate effects via site evaluation, documentation, data recovery
and/or resource relocation, as applicable, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA and
implementing regulations in 36 CFR 800. Refer to mitigation measures CUL-1 through
CUL-3 in Summary Mitigation Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impacts: Impacts to the historical significance of Salinas Dam (recommended eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places) due to spillway modification and dam strengthening
activities.
(2) Mitigation Measures: Mitigate effects by assessing and documenting the dam's
historical significance and condition to standards of the State Office of Historic Preservation
and the National Park Service. Refer to mitigation measure CUL-4 in Summary Mitigation
Plan. Note: the required Historic Architectural Engineering Record (HAER) documentation
has already been completed and submitted to the National Park Service.
(2)Findings: Insignificant.
Risk of Upset/Human Health
(1) Impacts: Flooding in downstream areas in the highly unlikely event of a dam failure,
including up to approximately an additional 17,949 AF of water associated with expansion of
the existing reservoir. A sudden dam failure would likely cause substantial flooding in the
narrow canyon below the dam and would increase flood depths (with respect to the existing
reservoir volume) as far downstream as the town of Bradley. In the highly unlikely event that
the dam failed, significant downstream effects would be expected to occur for many miles
downstream.
CAWINDOWMDESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -15- 1-23
Exhibit A—(to
1.6 FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN IMPACTS ARE MITIGATED TO LEVELS OF
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANCE BY PROJECT REDESIGN OR BY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (CONTINUED)
(1) Mitigation Measures: Implement the proposed dam strengthening and protection plans
in accordance with the specifications to be developed during the detailed engineering design
in accordance with Division of Safety of Dam (DSOD) requirements. The proposed project
includes standard procedures/methods for reducing potential dam failure/flood risks to
acceptable levels. Refer to mitigation measure GEO-DAM SAFETY in Summary Mitigation
Plan.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
(2) Impact: A recent preliminary seismic safety report opines that the existing dam would
require some fortification, to the extent presently unknown, for the project to be completed.
The City recently commissioned an update of previous seismic safety studies of the Salinas
Dam. Studies of this issue will be ongoing in the future as the City prepares engineering
plans and applies to the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) for approval of the reservoir
expansion project. One preliminary study has been completed by USR Greiner Woodward
Clyde. This study was based upon assumptions and partially completed data. The study,
contrary to earlier studies, concluded for an expanded reservoir volume that the existing dam
structure was not sufficient to withstand the magnitude of seismic event predicted by the
report. This conclusion was based upon certain assumptions and conclusions regarding
potential seismic events in the vicinity of the dam, as well as other assumptions that may not
be supportable. The issue merits further expert analysis, inquiry into the basis for the report's
assumptions, and peer review. The City intends to commission additional studies, analysis,
and peer review to arrive at resolution of the contradictory evidence that it has received to
date regarding dam safety issues. A comment has been made that the URS Greiner report
constitutes new information that requires preparation of a new EIR. The City does not agree
that this comment is valid at this time. The new information is one expert's opinion. It is
contrary to the opinions provided in earlier reports used in preparation of the EIR. The City is
not prepared to accept this expert's opinion for the purpose of approving this project and will
rely upon the EIR instead. Where there are conflicting expert opinions on a subject, the City
may exercise its discretion in determining upon which it will rely in approving the project.
(2) Mitigation Measures: None adopted or proposed at this time. Until further analysis can
be conducted, the City has received conflicting information. There is substantial evidence in
the record to support the EIR's conclusion that with the mitigation measures recommended
and analyzed in the EIR, the dam will be safe with the project. The City is not prepared to
accept the conclusions of the URS Greiner report without peer review, analysis of the
assumptions and evidence upon which the report was based, and further field investigation.
The City proposes to conduct further studies, and will continue to do so in the course of
conducting final engineering design work and applying for DSOD approval.
(2) Findings: Insignificant but should the additional studies conducted by the City result in a
recommendation for dam modifications, the modification options will be reviewed and
additional environmental review conducted as needed.
CAW INDOWSADESKTORCEDA FINDING.DOC -16- 1-24
Exhibit A-11
1.7 FINDINGS THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH
PROJECT AS PROPOSED
Aquatic Ecology (Inundation)
(1) Impact: The southwestern pond turtle is a California Species of Special Concern that is
known to be present in the project area. Raising the lake level is not expected to result in a
substantial loss of suitable habitat for this species which currently adapts to the ever-
changing water level in the reservoir under current conditions. It is anticipated that new
emergent wetland vegetation would become established rapidly after increasing the water
level, providing shoreline habitat for this species.
(1) Mitigation Measures: None.
(1) Findings: Insignificant.
Growth Inducement
Accommodation of a portion of the City's planned growth between now and 2022 when the
City's General Plan buildout population of 56,000 is expected to be reached; the proposed
project would provide an estimated 1650 AFY of new water supplies on a safe annual yield
basis -- this amount of water could support a portion (5000 people) of the allowable
additional population until the General Plan buildout population is reached; population
growth has the potential to result in cumulative effects on air quality, traffic, noise, etc.
Assuming the City continues to control the rate of growth in accordance with the City's
approved General Plan, no significant project-related effects are anticipated.
Energy Use
The proposed project would be expected to reduce the need to operate the electric pumps
near the dam base and to increase electrical consumption at the pumps at the Cuesta Grade
booster station facility, assuming more water is conveyed in the future associated with the
proposed project. The electrical supply for project pumps is provided by Pacific Gas and
Electric Company (PG&E). The additional energy requirements of the project are
insignificant.
Cumulative Impacts
The Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project will contribute to temporary area-wide cumulative
effects on traffic, air quality, noise, etc. during the construction phase when considered
together with other projects occurring in the same geographic area of influence. No other
specific projects were identified that would result in significant cumulative effects in the
project area during the construction phase.
CAWIN00WSIDESKT0RCEOA FINDINGLOC -17- 1-25
Exhibit A�18
1.7 FINDINGS THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WITH
PROJECT AS PROPOSED (CONTINUED)
The project has the potential to contribute to area-wide cumulative effects during the
operational phase related to the growth accommodating aspects of the project within the City
of San Luis Obispo's urban reserve line. As discussed for Growth Inducement, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
The project also has the potential for cumulative effects during the operational phase related
to growth accommodation and downstream flow effects when considered together with the
possible future Nacimiento Reservoir Water Supply Project. The City does not currently plan
to obtain supplemental water supplies from both projects, thus cumulative impacts are not
expected.
1.8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives
The Final EIR assesses a range of alternatives to the proposed project,including: 1) other water
supply alternatives considered (Nacimiento Water Supply Project, seawater desalination,
increased storage in Whale Rock Reservoir via transfers from Salinas Reservoir, and cloud
seeding);2) alternate technologies/methods for expanding the reservoir capacity and alternate
reservoir expansion volumes;3)alternatives removed from further consideration;and 4) the No
Project Alternative.An overview of the alternatives which have been considered is presented in
the following sections—refer to Section 4.0 of the Final EIR for more information.
Other Water Supply Alternatives Considered
The purpose of the proposed project is to provide the City with 1650 AFY of additional water
supplies on a safe annual yield basis. The only alternatives to the proposed project that have
been identified which could potentially supply up to 1650 AFY on a safe annual yield basis,
are the Nacimiento Water Supply Project,seawater desalination,and possibly increased storage
in Whale Rock Reservoir via transfers from Salinas Reservoir.Of these three alternatives,only
the Nacimiento Water Supply Project is currently being pursued by the City.
Nacimiento Water Supply Project
The Nacimiento Water Supply Project is proposed by the County of San Luis Obispo and
would involve conveyance and beneficial use of a portion of the County's entitlement of 7,500
AFY of water from Lake Nacimiento in northern San Luis Obispo County. The County's
entitlement has been tentatively allocated amongst various water purveyors in San Luis Obispo
County.The City of San Luis Obispo has requested an allocation of 3380 AFY.
The feasibility of this project is currently still being assessed, and an environmental impact
report is currently being prepared for the project by the County of San Luis Obispo. The
County of San Luis Obispo has indicated that they intend to prepare and issue a Revised Draft
CAWINDOWS\DESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -18- 1-26
Exhibit A-11
1.8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
EIR for the Nacimiento Project.The Revised Draft EIR is anticipated to address revisions to
the project(e.g.,alternative water intake structures at the lake,new pipeline alignments,etc.)as
well as numerous environmental issues raised in the public and agency comment letters
received on the Draft EIR (August 1997). The Revised Draft EIR is expected to be completed
in 2001. Due to uncertainties regarding the ultimate configuration of the Nacimiento Project
and the associated environmental impacts,the feasibility of the Nacimiento Project is currently
unknown.
Seawater Desalination
Previous analysis of the seawater desalination alternative by the City in 1991 determined that
implementation of this water supply alternative could result in multiple significant effects on
the environment and that the desalinated water would be very expensive.This alternative is not
considered to be feasible at the present time and is not considered to be environmentally
preferable to the proposed project.
Whale Rock Transfers
Another potential alternative for increasing the City's water supply would be to transfer water
via pipeline from Salinas Reservoir to Whale Rock Reservoir. Preliminary analysis of this
alternative (see Final EIR Section 4.2.4, Increased Storage in Whale Rock Reservoir via
Transfers from Salinas Reservoir, indicates that it is probably not feasible and it could
adversely affect other users of Whale Rock Reservoir water. In summary,the feasibility of this
alternative is questionable related to the following issues: unknown ability of existing pipeline
and conveyance facilities to handle reversed flow and associated pressures; potential for
introduction of non-native species and/or lower quality water into Whale Rock Reservoir from
Salinas Reservoir; and the potential yield of this alternative in terms of safe annual yield is
unknown and subject to multiple variables outside of the City's control and this alternative
could interfere with normal deliveries of water from Whale Rock Reservoir to other users
which rely on pipeline flows in the opposite direction.
New Reservoir
The possibility of constructing a new reservoir has not been seriously considered because it
would be expected to result in substantially more environmental effects than the proposed
project and no potentially feasible sites(e.g., suitable canyon location covering a large enough
area and that has existing water rights which the City could assume)have been identified.
Alternate Techniques Considered for Modifying Dam
Alternative techniques for modifying the dam to increase the storage capacity of Salinas
Reservoir have been considered and include other ways of structurally modifying the spillway
and/or dam crest. None of these alternatives are currently considered to be preferable to the
proposed project design which involves installation of an operable gate in the existing dam
spillway.
CAW INDOWSIDESUORCEOA FINDING.DOC -19- 1-27
Exhibit A-zo
1.8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
Alternatives Removed From Further Consideration
State Water Project
Although the City of San Luis Obispo had an opportunity to participate in the State Water
Project prior to construction of the Coastal Branch Phase II extension that connected San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara County communities to the terminus of State Water Project facilities
in Kern County, City of San Luis Obispo voters in an election held in 1992 voted against that
participation. Several communities within San Luis Obispo County opted to participate in the
Coastal Branch project and, as a result obtained entitlements (4830 AFY) to State Water
Project water and to capacity in the Coastal Branch. The Coastal Branch pipeline has been
constructed and its capacity fully committed.In order to gain entitlement to a permanent supply
of State Water Project water and to receive continuous deliveries through the portion of the
Coastal Branch pipeline that passes the City, the City would have to purchase entitlement(and
thus capacity rights) from a participant adjacent to, or downstream of, the City. The Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project is expected to increase the safe annual yield of the reservoir by
1650 AFY. No other subscriber to the State Water Project with entitlement to capacity in the
portion or "reach" of the Coastal Branch pipeline that could serve the City has offered to
permanently sell or transfer any part of that entitlement.The purpose of the project is not solely
to augment annual water supplies.The Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project would also provide
increased storage from which the City could draw during drought periods and would allow the
City to enjoy certain water storage rights of which it has been unable to take advantage due to
the incomplete construction of the dam as designed.The State Water Project does not represent
a feasible alternative to the project. Consequently,participation in the State Water Project was
not carried forward in this EIR as a potentially feasible project alternative.
No Project Alternative
The "No Project" alternative would result in no environmental impacts. However, this
alternative would not be consistent with the purpose and need for the project and would limit
the ability of the City to fulfill its obligations to meet projected future water supply needs
within the City. The "No Project" alternative would leave the City with no present feasible
option to provide the storage, yield, and other benefits of the project necessary to serve the
water needs of its water users set forth in more detail in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations. Therefore, the City Council finds that specific economic, social, or other
considerations make infeasible the "No Project" alternative identified in the EIR and that the
proposed project as adopted is preferable.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental effects. However, the No
Project Alternative would not meet the project goals (i.e., City's need to reduce its projected
water supply deficit of approximately 3861 AFY by the year 2022), and it is not considered to
be a reasonable or feasible alternative.
CAW INDOWSOESKrORCEOA FINDING.DOC -20- 1-28
Exhibit A2)
1.8 FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES (CONTINUED)
This Final EIR for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project considers the results of the Draft
EIR (August 1997) for the Nacimiento Water Supply Project, and evaluates and compares the
environmental effects of the two projects (refer to Final EIR Section 4.2.2). As of November,
2002,the County of San Luis Obispo has indicated that they intend to prepare a Revised Draft
EIR for the Nacimiento Project; the Final EIR is not expected to be certified until sometime in
2002. The feasibility of the Nacimiento Project relative to environmental impacts,water rights,
economics, and timeframe for implementation are currently unknown. Additionally,approval
and implementation of the Nacimiento Project are not within the City of San Luis Obispo's
jurisdiction.
The Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project is considered by the City of San Luis Obispo to be the
only feasible alternative at the time the Final EIR was prepared and at the time of project
approvals in November 2000. Therefore, the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project is currently
considered to be the environmentally superior alternative.
1.9 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The EIR for this project identifies the impacts discussed above in Section 1.4 as being
unavoidable, adverse significant impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the
City Council makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations that warrants
approval of this project notwithstanding the identified impacts that are not mitigated to a less
than significant level. Having balanced the benefits of the proposed project against the
significant and unavoidable effects, the City Council hereby determines that the benefits
outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects and that these effects are nonetheless
acceptable, based on the following individual and collective overriding considerations.
The project will:
• Reduce the City of San Luis Obispo's projected water supply deficit by approximately
1650 acre feet per year(AFY)on a safe annual yield basis;
• Increase the total storage capacity of Salinas Reservoir to provide the City with greater
flexibility in the use of its water resources, particularly in times of drought or other
emergency; and
• Allow the City to enjoy the benefits of its Water Rights Permit and to exercise its existing
water rights thereunder by installing an operable gate in the spillway of the existing dam.
CAWINDOWS0ESKT0PICEOA FINDING.DOC -21- 1-29
Exhibit A-22
1.10 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires the lead agency to adopt a reporting or
monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval,
adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The approved
project description with its corresponding mitigation monitoring and reporting plan
(MMRP) requirements, are hereby adopted as the monitoring program for this project. The
monitoring program is designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. The
MMRP is a separate document (Exhibit B to Resolution) which has been considered in these
Findings and has been approved and adopted by the City Council.
CAWINDOW&DESKTORCEOA FINDING.DOC -22- 1-30
Attachment 1 ' '*Exhibit A-!
V C > y
> L t0 =
O V > T
V ` C
U C
O
U O M
> O z >
> U ° A
a3 0 r-
Q z c '�
V g 3
L > O
a � Q = u
z o. 96 o U
co� 0
z
O o 0
W g6CL
N mac =
Z
p �sz -
Q W Q e °L' `a n d ' H •� s m nr y
U G y i 7 C = .y. E O 4. y E U 7 L � E
U m o y p O ° 3 u
U n a o 61 - cr o 3 o
s mo r r 00 y any 3 �° - �° y .` U
N o o a `o o k a y 0 aOi > CO
Q L W o 3 3 - o w 3 m o � s ° c cYi E ,c
a s u v u ayi m 3 .°' c°i ca O
< aa c c � ass •-' - 0. 00—
°' = •> v
E •o a`� ai F F e u s p u m
caci Y o v 33 V Ra 3 oo c°> � Q o
I e C7 u A v € - c y c ? 'H 3
-IDo c g o a a 0 E c ='p° v d m En m
v y N d t O
m
rz > O O
Gil >
A C L u O
CL C7 u i o E ° c y > o c c
> u C3 Q c o o ;? p c Q p v
CLQ o c ° cin E ma °= � .> 0
v Y X0] 0. m y
V y •- �°i �' y y N d H d 0 7 vi O
cd Cd
y OD C ? A O d t v O R a
C d Q N ^y w a1 " lC E y O C
y `o Q °a m o °u c o °a Fs- v ° °� E E o aci 'E '� c
u C vO u .Es v m N .= E - o - p A
L W 7 W 7 U ,rn y C .G ._ O y V ty0 E s C
a a
L O Fo c V to c � o
m cv
VU °
p N
w
m F e U N o R V a.E r? a°Di m� ? ArA CIO 0 CA
co
cc
m
0
� y O , •o`
> d
O V) a. uVou u mayi
0 i
Aachment 1 -10 Exhibit
o;o
L O
y O
L N
E a
as —
O L
Z .c
G
o C
V �
G y
7
O O
UG
� L
.. oa
U9
�O
rA
N m
> U
` 3 a
a�
Q �
y
F GE
y '
60i C
Q " e
Q
m U
Or Q C6 y
h
z EP. o 6.
~ z Q o e Q
w a• -� Q N 'o 0
U � Q "" � � ooA ti a; o � •�
d Q V1 � � 3 .E � •c y c.� d y t C
p,•— •p V C lQ E E
z U ° .c y C O a� �.'�" y y C N T > pq V •O
U L 2 0 y a) v 0 p C A
v 7 W .� C C V i n
� `� � � u
E
ggT
z Y 'fl N > •G iv .L.+ 'fla`i ° �.. ` O .N O Op O ° C
o m E
s c m c o o.= .E ,o
Q yao L A c a y o c 3 •_ - a� :9 O 'D u o
CL ON
CL
9 d `' a0i ` O in •O 9 0 7 L 0 0
_ _ m
0 C
o
E E c tir°.
° ia a ° :° • u o 0 0
e O p u ob E p A z y ° a te
w a d '> 4 c `m .ud a aEi o it
v
> e a on a v '- c c ° a u. o f y c E
w Q � a ? y 'n ° `n •fl E c^ y
` r 9 Ed y G y R C �. M.2
C VQ O rn L F L C y U
m O 'p C > N V a
V R y = Q! H
a°i _a°i o E m ° m E c
y Liz. ° — a A > d o ` > � o c
a'
as �. � •p H d m � ° m ayi •E
d H m -Oo N h a�
' c c o t ° vin c o
H , v V E c •E =—° .oc u 'E A F" E O a
aEi c C •E o d c o
O yN � y y •— _
3 s .E E o V U 'm u Cd m V E c ° c
Attachment t Exhibit A-3
a o
L p
O
'o 05 c �n
Z z CL s_
C r
O V R L
- O s ti
.c9 tis 3
s ti
UC 0° � m
fA
61
a3 3c°- o
E
L on N � ca
7 C L v C
F m h U v u
U de uEs
a Q = o 0
O CL
V
Dec. o i E3
Z U 9
.., = od
n
E. ZOO o 00 �° v �
� t �
a Q N •ppp > n. COc
L.1 0.
R om ° o
010
O c c
� pz .0 r- sv
O N > yCw
•O
C m o � a c v o
V1 '7 L y c t m c C'sw r o L u c o0 R c u
Q cc c u R `°' d 'N m o .� a y o n o c E
Z 9 p u _ T O.•— 3 C 0 0 .fl O to .—
y ' •O is
Acc 0
0 .0 .N NO E
go
L DA w O V E v > € .CL
D Cqu
V A r u c v c O v .3 c a 3 a u a
y C O O C C4 tr- •w O O y C R A d is ^ cc v
y y COO O ^ N
C V toO M >z Ca y = U C w •C
C '� C C C d•Nc C X o o
O n O Z V N N
W c o D y ' v A ° c °� is C v L L y F O N c
LT.
O eO+ L C NCo— C = V Q V U O = O y C •� C R
O� L y .Q •U H E y U N CO N y o
03 CL V V .E V •� •O
_ °' v2 � o 'g� � � vh � >
>. a E v c n o axi D '� °� .3 a v to
a o •= o er v u c'r op Co a y E m [cl o c
� U u c 1 E u o u = ° as .E ai E _ - • Lc. CL o
.3, m ie 'O R 'D O V L 4; V a O ul
ao y 3 > M..E• no o A O ea ` u >'
y O C C C E
L C0 y 0 3 U V A C C O .'CD C A d u m u 0 Gi w
> 'y ° X .9 ti y h o o u o v 'A c v a� Q to °
ai L o. u ca 2 ti �., v u 4 'M 6 E ca m
L r c H u a c ° Z w oO E E
o y u O •� c n H c i u
Cao.. c "
C N 'O 5
Mo Q OD o
Q u w s O z
w vi W 'u u H d c =.x Lz7 u > >
V ca Ont 3 V
00-2
.E
Attachment 1 '{O Exhibit A074
a o
L �
y O
O N
Ea
u �
> L
0
Z a
C y
Q
c �
nJ' y
UC
L
.Ti d
U 9
a�
h
9 m
> U
L
a3
a�
a „
F o e
fA '
w Z
m o
J E H
ZO p" 0, ° a
� pqZ U ° x
W FL rr Q N �o o d
= W JEn
Q OGQIx Z o
C� F U v � 6 CD
0o � 'c � i
LTj o
M "
Es.., •uN
U = 7 D =
Z Y .D N d U 3 � da �' •p N
o
R
p,M L 9 fl Q.z
a ate , _ 0 -0 � y
C m p 0 •� _ _
a 5 v y `o z c o c F as
d
U
t.to a y N U R
go C > C O N ,C N v C 'C tO y 7 d
ON e ` c c V E p w N •o c °' v E
. tea " ' N E � '=
R c a c`a T
O
ca
N .� E o v V N O
e U o A Z Ca
y vva '3 cs o = ec°im ao c ca=i �
Cc
Q F 26 c € g c ; �_ _ m ° E c
L '� 3 y 7 w O is C 7 "' y — E• COi iT O v
EL
cr
cc
i rz dcu 4-
y a .= H G U U
O O
aQ � � oCD
a am.-1 T a m a� .E E • • ti
Attachment 1 �p Exhibit A-5
ao
L �
y O
L N
C O�
61 ...
> L
O y
Z
C O
O u
0
C y
O R
UC
rL
d
Uu
a�
y
u al
> U
L3a
G y
a „
y
L �+
y •
0
CG Z o
�
0. U 0 Q c
Z C6 ^� E
z00 0 � Q
,
0 .0
Q W R Q Z ° 3 ° s y •= u � = m.E A
-5� EE
� y � O 'O D ?� y
Q O O N ti O vOi •� .: 10
Z 10
C C a t 'pp e y u y N O
a V R CL obO� Q. 3 C C Q C R .eA
Cd
>1 d A
d ti—
CPS N y 'O r •� d -U .�.. �. y d p
Q E 'D y .D L O V L
� N > CL M
42 0
� >, d .
00 ° R '�' E � � a s •v y u ya .a � c
a m Q c y a to H y c a
RLas o aRiv °
R � aL Y a.Eod y Oot o
U •^ A 4, L L .E y Q y y Z
O L lu
> CO
O.
E y Ucc
0 .=L+ C C 'C G d
a CL y
y ' >>
ao R o y Q ° ° s u R ° ° s
yR N C N n' R '7 3 y C C y 0 OD O
L N 0 .0
n d
•E > O o _ o R a o
R y a a [- .mum y � C7 - c E x 3
u
E e i 'E E u � 'm y ¢ a °o c°a [zl o
O H v z
I I I 3
Attachment•I 40 Exhibit A-IO
ao
L �
do
� N
E a
d
> L
o y
Z Q
° V
O
'V ,0
C V
u
L
epi d
U9
�O
h
9 �
> U
a
` 3
mob
a
a�
Q u
L �r
F o e
U d �
W o
o u 9
Qr Q W
C)
U a 6 y
Fw ° L
U
� Q
z a O O N o 0
c
Q ao �
CL o v R H O
U
O ` C N °
E O L V y G E O O O O O
a v
C2,
c o f c
i W o x CLOo 9 „ °' y y 'U
n H °
G00CL ONL tc .0.+ O •C h C N y y 7 E
O
E
Q .�. tQ C
>
E .i N V E...,
O � C X
o :0 3 s° E > n c .'= i
e > 3 y m c o c o E - U R ti
c V L d
�1 C 0 y �i y Y DO L L O •3 n y GO V 4..
v > c >1 B .0 o R
O M m > a
'O '° .0 C V y
= o '�O
E ° E d
cc N O d C ° O v 71 a T 4-. U
O
C V L y C o t O
c U
u C L ma e °_' •v-' a oCd
u aW 3 c°rEQc :o o L
da
OO cQ ai
i a y A •=
Y ° •C a) y C t y > y 'O m E = cC O 3 Y v
c °' d
V1 S R l0 a 7 h U A = y = C S C O V N
E °h' Q R A Q y v > > > Q E o a c 3 3 z
�
° R ,
Attachment 1 4b Exhibit A-
E cp
-Ea
u �
� L
O
Z
O V
� O
V �
C V
7 +r
UG
L
V
U 9
�O
N
9 m
> U
L
a3
a�
Q �
N ati
d
L
F ' °
N •—
U d �
W � o
O
V C
Zo. a oN
0=3 Q
F. ZOO o
0 .0
O
W N O ro R -a a
O = u
0 �
U L = E � o = o
Cl. p y .• p y a = E V y
_ _ o
Vl n L
U -0
y = r0 N N
ao E s a y c n U a n
Q ^ C •R p 9
to
L N y O •� y O y
C N > aui co O •7 a H O rp" eua C C F
_ L a N a
O C ° C .E
a e Z
toCL
a
LL G 2 y ca V p 00 E to C N p c0
a�
> o.t �a a aL� p v c p •�
`a 3 O = tea a E 00 a> E > v 2 u
SW L Q 'ed m m 3 = 4o N R d E •a b c •>
L A y O N C 7 Cke N •O G U U
� UGO
3 °' E3fl0a = EE
10 .� t o y v yt u •N .� H s i,
ccL r = E •• = 2
i = � � v � •e � � _ •3 0 v.. p �
o
i
w to C
E 3
3ooe = m._ � v� U a -0 m a $
N
�•U°o u a o ¢ d Q i i i -37 U
Attachment 1 "7'O Exhibit A-8
a o ° m �
L > o 0
�a
L r
c U
Q.m
0 o A A u04
o u ° •n
e c
O L3 +
U D ° a o
rOI N it L L
c° n
a0 � > zc
y y Q OD d
cU 3
C —
a
y u .N 3 0 A
•
` � c c c c
° o n ° A
EL
W � • U A a) E
O y 9 p: p• � m e a,
3 U 'ao a
U En c a 3 c E
_ o Cn E o
z 0, o f U
.. U 7 4 a m
,� Ga Z ° = o .E U m t
z oF
oao OLE
�
N o E > -�
,�, WWF � < rn •v o rn �° rn
Z c C c
t s •c c o 0
m
Q W d `"i e Y 3 0 •y a c -0 EL
u w m v io
° °
CLQ V '" cc c
ea c O� ` s_ y �°L X00_ ° o_
V� r7 U E c . ° 3 U y _ m H C .o � u Q =C - O °
6. E s - 3 �� z
., y p N •E '5 :° = d a� o °? 'eD iv o •a� c a� y
O C u C
cc C
.0 v OD E p p = B. Q C .� �,' at
m 0 Cc
N o c d 00 c 3 ao� a o E Cu 0 d 3
L t
'O O .0 t O N R O. C `� m OD O
> u cO " N td T O O. C .
a -0 -0 ° p y 3 0 � = c E c •_ m
Li C ° O A A N y u O c O 40 v 'O O C
O� C > a O G O O � A O O =� 4. 7 '' OD
�+ v y
m `a F 0 o c o o LU) A a y °c ° H
>. u a N 3 .E C �.0„ N o o o u c o
�. u ° •Es ,, .D C cL •D O S
c `o Y > A y z
O O O u •= O oD C O. a
N LL ° Yi C •� OD N C OD 2 N V = O 0 - = y s
d o c o J O
u U t 3 ° e °
v .3 o o A E N
�" •p C N y O —
u W W °� aci O `•
O'
u - � F — A = m v ._ N m o
aycc
3 30Ey � yo � s 138 U
Attachment 1 '�b Exhibit A-1
C
fO °
E
C U
o
O V ` p .N
C .O y 0. ❑ V
O R asN
> E o L O
U
U9
� m
O R
rn U
is r0 .
a 573
u L d LO O
0. CL
R M. M.
O d y cC R
V 9 'i R
a Z m O C 0. a
0. O Q SL a v c
U > M .2
m
C 3 3Q
C6 eq p R
p0
Q 0 iG OM �
F � G7r �" � � � o •c � � � o
Q aoa z m � mam
rA
V = R y R N V L N N
70 0
Q � r 0. .o E a Y o V c x .� w _ R .5 • E
v c -0
0 CU 0 cd
c ° c E
Q c pe L R V E > .E —y v 3 R .Q •N N
vs a Q c. o E o
Q O+ L
E C� e
o a y
m v c > Y s a g e 3 c p d oo = c $ o
C � Z a`i c � c 'd c
,o u E 0.
.a c oo c y oo n a o
� U
.- R 'fl C R N V C L C d
C > C C N R r- 0. 17 7 V .0
0 ° C R0. Nv
0
OLA CR m y V O d
V O •
O C O
0.
y 00 N N N J
i '0 d R 'C v; R
e u d
U O O In C 3 •O .° y C y C T N C O Q: O r
d a L C =— CQj t E N R N 'O t« O y R U % a
L R O N G O N U Q •C rA
N V
7
4. > y N U > Tip v C V C t y .V+ 0... r .V.
_.+ U R R N R 3 R R N R R O
o L v V w
o m R m v o • v o w
y c ° yo s � .E _ E � R j � � � E > > y
to [u 3 V3V] N [a] a m ❑ m eu m =
Oc m_ c
Attachment 1 -�O Exhibit
� ; T
_
L N T A p > o O
.�. E t.0_, y c vii O = id d i0
G >
Q.
Z c °3 c s s > ° R R
d y Q Q
A R c iu
U G y d N N E E ECo
o >
� •>_ n: � c y A .5 � eon .= ° � N °`'
U 9 ❑ c's Q c Go
n ar m V m
L O Q y 3 y R = V 3 ti V C
N L e0 'O N ew. Q Rv C A
CO S 0 O L y m � O.
d ° 0 3 y y d v c c U c m m
o U p ,o c N °Cn
A 3 c
O 00 N C .O N ❑ = C
N u - fl kn c L M E y y o
> T td O.L N .y er N V 00 > _
0 E C t0 N ❑ L 3 ,N V L co L — �.' A C G
y ' A > LL m U 3 � o .
U w C p, v 4? c=a 00 C .t.. E O ' e,. coo m co
O _
U m ` .Y = 2 c U
o ro
R O O = y N d N 'p .� N r E
p�. E N E o °' co >
Z ❑
c i7
Orte. 0. UA > c 3 R c y E ° s •= a� `°
z' .O �• C O L R O N O. N R U
F .. v a € _ Co L E
v s `o v •E o E c v d
❑ o. Do D c v a•- m E m > .
YS L 9 r O o O 0
F
UCd
Q c �F ; t_ Eo .0> w > o
F � � Q Z
Q 7 •�. y � V ,C .�+
Co
o
z L QO O OVO ctOi0 C o
> C N OY > d m ,C O O`
L
>' CM
as `u o o s n C o d v v
C a t d
E to y o h E
^' N v s
_ > ° gra
MI: C .0.. V C C r 0 Y cc
i
= N .
p U
a Y c > v 5 3 n
M — ° .o L 0
e� y y rz
N
V 0 O S E Co L.- L N U
_ U .o 0. Cl
v nA ai d .° z
E > p .
hLT. O .O O C .� C Y i R 7
O •� O .T+ L
d Uv 'c � sE — U „ °
d
i = y CLQ O L y
ccA
m CL eC0 A em E L m R O 0
Attachment I " -fV Exhibit `
L
> >
as O > >
> L m O
O
Z L C a R
o u 3 v 3
0 u c
al
V
> O ac � 0
0
CL ° y
<�; og o �
'H d
L > C > _
o �..
V '� � a
O ' ° E 3 E
per. O Qv .: �
d d
6 d t o s o
O uj CL o L U U A
r. Z Q o e a o f S E
F021
W y Q N a i o
Q O CA
F > W.
vCA
� yZo
U N 'O •� t y Cp V N O A
r r L N l u L C C O > 9 p V
U m c E r 3 = d u vas Ccy ti
r N �
Q L y O D •E QO R O ca Mo
m c E _
Q L L L V N lE V O bo
N y
a o ep
QON .04 = w p m
y L
c N > a v H �" +
V U t ir �
O U
wrX. C C 'o L t O R p
d Y r0
O H Y °
cc i w c�C d C 'O 1> O NU A
o u a c 'o c E
to
7 > V T O C
.. a o a� Ea :: � Q cc
CL
a°is4- v
y o o .= ¢ .= G o y a o o c aui
L' U s r DD �' 0 ^ v C fO fVA
d r 9 � o dOen . :' y = am vEur
t` y w
med
C y 7 y S V C H �, c ° C o
c
c is m m e ' is
ar°i 2 ai e p .Ec „ v o
O eu�
�
v = c O O o
Cn � ';ticA `oE Cq miio.aERo °: es
1-41
Attachment 1 'b Exhibit A"1 Z
a o
L �
d �
� N
ET
V
> L
O
Z a
C Q
O O
'V 9
C y
7 ..
UC
L
V
U L
a0
v.
o m
` 3 a
a�
a „
y y
61
L
fIl •
U u e
W �
Q
a Q ' U
Q
Z a E
y
Z v9
z0 cca
aZ �
F O GT. o - d .5 � -E = v L w
cc
,_A > cc
C+ U3 - Zan c Oo0° ' w � s _O
y3Am y
i
U
00
L y E
U m c O c u , N L
Q a y o U ` -N d e u ao m i 3 0
a u 9 N G a v v O c`> ¢ y 'c � O ou O
> e r e a0i
Qfu
00
N 3 A C Y
p C p O '� _ •? C d V �
M A
C Z c a r c A d d
e = W '� cR um33 Ev
LL O CO 2 p 'Mu
y 'O E A .�+ 4"' O E >, u
d 3 R u >
CL u
as ed
C 1 YY N L7 > •� 0 O y E d h S
e a R '� y e y 3 L
2
dw oZ' ca .3 = ao � �
y Lz o c • c a, o a c ca
,, m o 3 u Lp c:: d o y 'd o o
d y Y
L OC = C E u
a ' z o as d t o S
y � O v o m '- c-E E o c odea E e " o
F o •= c u E U -� p o F 2
u GL LL •�, u
v
vacw2E y mm 8
m•c z
n E 3 o F F a 3 E v v Z Z o
Attachment 1 4b. Exhibit A13
ao
L �
y O
� N
E o+
u ..
> L
0
Z n
� o
o �
. O
G y
UC
>� L
a+ y
U9
a0
H
V m
> U
a3
a�
Q �
Vl
F ' °
W � o
O
u 'C
a Q
O � ay
N
Dia
ZOD o
z QcoF o
waQ N ; o
C Q .. >1 c ;
Q jD
rO� p U N � _ 'p M O
FF" / Li. 0 Cr N d A C O
10
10 Cn CL
wo
93
E c n y c a� u c s
z cco = c o_ o d c A A c c. p
C N •> C C pp id y0, d0 . 0
00
C 'C A OU C O.
Q L R O� O m v, C O. d •Oq E ,OD o0 Co
C Lu 0
CL oo L a o c > o o s " 0
Cn Q N E O c0 .. C » y' ap
E v c u > e = J e = E t u u a
C N > > 'E v cpi p L U .0 = O tO oD Y �O
ea c oOr- m a4 y t ,00 c > R = c s o c u
n o n 014 eco 3 �
a, a o 0 ° D u .° O so. v W 3 w . o v�
Q4= R io y 0 m m .Ly. T i.., 0 s G > c a E s u
o y d " E L�z7 Cn .v ai N E tO >, ° > u s ° u 0 p 0
oU as o o � .y os � _ s m � s° °C u a1d NCd
cc
00 rL
a 5
o c O S s c c ? m E g
y �' 7 R V] N U Y C ° rn N p y •4 i 71 V
u 7
O o ° w
v° r i o CC cn c c o [n [n e) u u U
m h s ' O .E A s =
a Gz7 E„ u s a ri �+ U y " "i v �° c .4 Co
u u o Ed i
Z E U U LZ 00a Z 3
..tachment t 4o Exhibit
a o �
N N w
L
o m
Z R
c
. O R �
UC � o
N �
L h o0 1
p
Lv
L m
H
H u O w
O F5 w
7 G y :O C
v
V p 0 w a~ci
z on E
u 0 S
C a,
U
z cc
o E
o.y cn E S
r. OWZ U9 L ap.0
E... ZGRD o 0 0 0 � 0
z
= WWF QNvb
�r E
Q Q = c m L d
W O Y•�•I �' C C N = .� O y y �.. •C O vi
� � � V N n T U b� � y N •O y
W F• > y d 0 w 0 = � a C 7
w � •o E •.
w A ? E d y y 3 d
z cu
06
N O0 cc
c d L C d
CL
0 7 C y
— E = H d d — v a m e
e ^q 0 m e Z 'v o c y w E u u a c
w d O •� R y > 0 0. 7 O m •O
o a on v = w
W o 0 ai n. a; 0. c v 0 0 61 o
k. E
a '
a
y _ u
c 3 ami
.moi i
w w r y00 .00 o > w c
wacw, ad
cc
c d = c c 0
« E :: n o • w a E E o
Y
c U y Y 3 0` T H a y E .E fl `-' aoi A z
o Lo 3 E a c y 0 o � cn m d � c •@ 5
•C
tocu w f�C c c E n w
H O �. vi A >, C v 0 y .0 LU E O E y y
w E. .� w .0 = is aQi .0 p Lc, co u d •� y
GO w
Z
L � 3 •O•, 7 0. Cl �. L L N O O t — �• v.
lm
E o 'o
O o c ri H o ri c .4
E $ vi ? c u
CA CC
u =_ � _ vas mcn oo
4' CL ° 3 '� n o •E o a C' E R E v v
Attachment t -lb Exhibit (►"�S
ao
L �
y O
� N
E o;
> L
0
Z
a
o C
C y
7 .r
UC
T L
U9
�O
y
> U
CL3
a�
Q �
Vi
F o e
U d �
w �
7
O u 9
� U
0.
Z
U 'o
Z cc o eQ
O ,..,
z
w C6 N � o
Ed �" O
~ C N O N Q N •p o
CL
E o s 3
9
7 z d e0 7
pp p C
0.
4)Cj
M h
C U u y p,•u y z
7 i A d d aD r p a
CL
C �] ,� �' O 66 •E v O .. �
CD
7 CC Y d � •p N w
m r o 00 00 c v y
00 m .. E
d
C y U
1-45
Exhibit
o_
E u `
a+ = Acca 3oc'o°-n
CO .O
Q o CL mU o•=Dc
u0u� c�5, zom° u
r —
_ o
B 3'v �a osoc osoc
E v ° °� E
o o E72 o = E ao
C n mwsu T+ m oU e CLU
c a c c
O a N O S L y ° CL. g N ° N lE
C G O y C V N U L N U y L d
E m c E E .
m 00 M to
z Fc >,E > mEn•H > R Ea'y > R
Q u E R uLu U.00
GS] r m o a o
z„ o�' m iaEca
F W a o 0 M
0.0
0 0 4 e m y
to
2 r= " �`-•�' oa� E c o On=
0
0. zQ. uL A.� Nc2O-�°� cc co . �= EAcc
W C/1 Q a� d ac o E c °> c ob N E'u ° 0 ao2 c m
GG [r/1 Qa e_ 7 p V O U p 2.--
.0 y y CSD E o
_ A z O O •L c 0 — N L N�/�.. V N'D N- C' :+ V
M .0 C U =A U y y U = C
W Q ~ N •� fA•_ V 10. N O
G. UE °
C CU) VCI V EV Nj 7°H U Ev E flE
CL $Z UU d
W � ✓ Lz. � c � 3'` � ` c
°- caCU
o °L
z am cc � 0.
oa 3 ° �aoa� ��a2
F E.
-E i �M cz�
U - c n.ccQ=
O
= o
z vz o c- d c � ch 33v u
oe oo m3 @ °
y
U u�C/1�•O
a
o CL y 'c
v' :? doaco ° a
�. c Uo
o.y E N
� N NoY3a�i•� c°`oEo° °' y�
R� ?_ E R o 005-27- = 08
nE
O ._ N•
Q A dm �a � OG� iy4 � ...E.= =
0 ocn c m� E
2.!::-e.5 c cr.o
= DO y-m ' ` =
y z
o y mo.5 c ono EtYo v �3 c°� a
U o in 3 O�) c E- 3 c o v� d o
6 v0 d ` 0 uv� y " �V
O O C=� C L to� O� N p,F•fl =
0. a o3c o3 a �'Oao.o4) 0C0:0 0
C)
O U m u a C
rL
•p'C O d p 3 c G 6 V y 0
f/1 G VJ•� O fA N «•
Ci
Exhibit
r. y y rn
E CT! C C C
d = R o a
Q O a O a O a
UO UO UO
o r o r o C
cu 0.- v o. — 0 n.
3
L y A U i L c N �, c O
a 00 N :° m " v = ° o°'n m 4> = ° m
au ._ w u •_
C' M i a °' c m A a v c R m a v c
o E ° a
o L v o f a> p E L a>
C O T'� u - O T— V O T'- u
E � L c m � L c � s =
E o c LL3 '— y o c LTJ "
V a y ._ O N a y .- o d a
z = = ESE c = EEE c = EsE
UE .= sU UE .EsU UE .= sU
N
r V
W " r.T L y R H c0 WT R
L U V V 'fl N V
0.
Qi `o o y o o N o N 3 R E
fs. Z o0. v m E A u °> c y E c°> u c y E � o �
V1 Q V 61 R cV V R C V R C = = R
pVZjWO c eoEo c a, c c = cro 0
E
RLc .=
ov0 -0 75
_
_
Zorn N RGcu
y
U A =V cV �
E2cE = 'EEy�yvO u O
E CaC Eo°0
O c O O O E °uL'>
°Z Q U U oU o on
c�
cp
[� > GL n a y = y
zwo z a
-- m.s
O
t R i d V R ao y n Y n
Z
o
CC
Q o `� o = o
m
z e •o
00
�I� r.� LE. •u :e •� cya .0 c
y L >
I.r cO -p c0 -= ca = >
to
O= "oYy • co
v ? �C� .
V R
yc d _ — n ri 6 u 3
= c c eo'= O = E = R m a 0 d E
4 . a> R a> u E ° c E 0 a >� au o
R
L v
Q o Ca
m3 - .y y E 3 E A ` o mo=od Tr
v
o V y Ac O
rL
o —Nd
O Uycc
U R co y
> PC ..0O_
z
my .° y• ° o y -
n ao
co >L = H cn V C a0 G V=
R o m R > a> E c E co « "„ ', E a> R > o
t = O w > - ai O O ry .� .> O >
epi R PC E _ ? = on•_ a> p R e __ 9
CLOd N d — O .— ca '7 (/j y C ca
.] C e0 yO v� '> T `� E Cvia .� _ , .- 7 a g
G � > > aa°i ' vv O � > > yEa��i Oyc �
v Lu $ o S LR m o a v> °'. = u 3 a 3
iJ
` Exhibit
T
E
i n
oc Ln
n
UO
m
o r e >
CL o - O
eo = y = c m
6 ca
R U .c?
�i cc w O. N C co
O 6 O c
0o c E u u o
u = ` i0 —
E u r c m c
E ami
i G C. Liz cn as X ti
Z E y o u A •= o c
c c z E E d a m
U E .E .0 0 S a E
V W T uT v w
zFO0.Lra OZ O 6aO<C. O G nu a� Lc c `c?
boDm v OaO 'Ad r-
%. ap
OV O
d
T
T OULa"D
aL m
Z - L 0 >
S u � m � cc mc
d ° '
c
R! _
rr bC E A , c •° o
D z O C O m w m T N O C C u u
> N cC0
QOa. `moi .� y a y
X r7 c 3 'c ° d d o t a N c t u E c
U o E ? 3 a v .E d E v �° v U
zaz �
F a Z o c y
m g 's
r ` N
R: U a, o
Z E
O Q oo L) c
FC OD C'�
Q 7 E m
E- o as
n r c
O o c n
r y O ti
Vl r'
2 .
Cr- c
•q m C U
y m O
baa O
O G Y = d C y 0 a
ccZ
00 �'9 Ou G d m •cr C
c 3 r L O
L cO o T C d y
1
� m 2 O V
L y
td CdaJ C•— N
c N C cJ m V =
OO U cce u cid y R �'-
1-48
Exhibit o—q
.. T
C C
O p
T p y
U o O
w
v o 0
pn
Cc
C
L 0• C •C L O 0.
y •� � L •� N O L O
•� y _T� y y '- d A C N
F v = 0
ZQ a� 'a o
CL u c u
' E >
° o Lo E �° v ri
U y an m
Z ti o y Q N T—c0i c c
W 0 0 N LO y y C 0 .3 C '
O 4 0 O •6i a� �. d
0. 0
Q. V1 Q as d E EU v
GGGG m CL
€
` y 0 ,ono , E
V
z ° o p �
Z U Qj m v Cc
0
a)gn. pEc
aj
p; Z
G 0 V1 dEC �' O N 'O
O O w 'C h a d r
0 C L p y y O y
V] y on a� o
O R C L DA W •y y N O y p d H A
•-+
U G O N 7 = 'E .� C d fl N •� .�
Z opo y C N C y C C y 7 Q C A C
G Q C O C
h V
Q .a E 4 .�o N E 2 c.�'s = w E c �°� 'm
..n Q . o w — H e ti QG •p
0 h u C
a
A c,ia
H '9 to L
r� m. Vl V Oto cl.'Q
L O N N C •� cr. D O
0 N O y
w ro o t is i op a 0
o ,° > o
O o
oq� O 0. c C 7 i
i+ c�C 'G y N C E 0 O O N 2
N L .` O d. E w lO
2oN E iNN
0. i0.
O
O C E S
0yp cc s L 4
C 0. C y :� 0
d C •� N cp C y cp C C �c
pC. 'E w
3 U C
o v 'co � n � � e •a � = o
4 ;° c z
v
1-49
Exhibit
o+ N y 2-
E ti V v
E v > V ,y
�
Q `o °a o N AL" m D A c n
O L O W
UOD � Uw 3 AO U o0
U
C TL e=7 3 ca 7
i s o n d a c
N
oa a A d O Ep cp > coo--
y
u
Q' E o U A T c A s
7F3 *zu t5
0 op
ZQ tcouE > =a oa °o ocE
°u u 7 U U v v
r0. r.
ac c N d " so 0ono d O 4 E u v m. 2
O O a• c O `� oq C a N O cOi N p
Q+ O Q u u a°pi 'ons
egg � 'oo > � cv � au3sOoc mteccaQN =
oo
cd
to u po0N 'Z0 EQ y E OaN > G'C `�
.E L y = O y p % R O' W a
W
HAvApuyEcQvEvEt ° em
a c. aciC
O � `o
O >
Z
4n bn'F •J' L W p �]' y V d Q
un
10
z um
G^iJi ~ C C 2 vONi U i y V o y V .3 •� > a L
Q J E '� •3 o c° = Co W A E m v E E > v
V Q F E s o 'e .5 N > N a o = E .0 c v y o t
F f/1 y A 0 oD LO N N O yn 0 7 c G. E O = O
2 s a ca E A N m u t d N
v G 7 V Gcd
d a N y vp
ID C y C TiC y —y y U L .� t
L c=i L 7 C 'C 5 C •A � � R U 0. 0 tow
7 •y d R U .� >,C..� R ro o
fq y L 0 N y 0 +•' a y y LC C y » N
a+ X = car
to ca
C i0 R > C y �• p •= 4p. H N L C r E
O = O t C s O t V
ca �-
O
aai 0 ti m E w d c aai cat := d s °
N E y L = y .E 0=A 0 0
R y
0 p
UL E
Exhibit
T
C � c
61 7 7
E V O y O y
a+ e U
m
a1
U o0 U 00
d R
3 " E
CL E m o
u c
O ,
t a1 y
Z F c a o E o
Q ° n a. ° ..
U H °.' U a
F _
Da+ O oo 'W c
0. Z C4 u e Y •'� y c y V
u o 0 ' fl
my ° A
C. Q•= ° c .4 .�
oc o 00 E 61 o d o �p 39 O
0 0 = G t«01- c u c cn
Ev u
W c •$ c 2 ° >,= a A •vy= :g aEiv `n
V ,.a 6i cr C ° d 0 ° O a 0 t C a O
Z W ¢ 0 E •a u E A u 2 F- aa°a •� �7 � �c
az ,
" Q ca y d c
OOV1 > ca E o
c ° C3 ami c d
Z o t >,m R o ff o0.0
z
O W ° ° o
CIO >,-0 uV d °Y1 v H
Z V o c e
'0 •0u = c o
m R 3 c m c u O
F= o �a = aa u • �, u
z 5 o c
a1 y • Y •o
� u p O O C v p �
Q ►.7 E m a ' o _ c aai
F A v 0010 v D a
w U O Ca
cu 0
Ca ayi LC•cc °�s °s O
d . y p m O d
U4 � E zo d
A
00 00 Wcpi .•=i-
c E
. coE o Eda .
' im
'O.iF �C
m
O d H
o N E�o ._ o
U V O as y a u ,y ' A 4.. � 7 3 t
e A m E.0- u m O is s 0 a) E 0 p .0 R 3 c �= o c u c c N
g c > °u d 0 0.4u-, c c .u°1 c y v a n � o c° '� n ` E .° -_ � rn a
bD > .� O y L N 03 u p .0 di
> C C v N 'O l... y 3 U U
u pc ti > — u y a ao �_ E A v y
N i t0 4- •O .V O C O ° y O C 0 .N C a aCn O
3 E fl .floj
¢ � c .p � � d o .E v Y •E aci ^y s � ¢ m � .�Ep � .�Ep �.. � � w
0 C
al O t01ii C N aJ y •C y O C y X W W -i' R Nis
CL N V 2
V oco
E E E V a m y E1-51
U
Exhibit 6-7
w 4
C 3
U
E V
mo
GVi � A C
C y �
U O U
o r
a =
O ca ro
E 'sro=y g o 0 E
,c
C o ' EA $ Z aF c
o t = _. E E U .
eo a> o u o ¢ AM
c H .� •� c � �L = m c
z F = e = ° o
tt
Q
a F"
Zti R � 3 •V me °
c
° ° Z „ •� a� ° •R
0.
d _ E
[7] Q
LJL fir/] Qa �. G 7 u O V 7 N U
oa 2a ,ny � E =
z � � cQC
zz
oc
r
Fw>IGS o e d �
9
.c
C C
r
o a
co Co m o m d v u d y -o tr v c pU O
a 3
.m d;C Q O G
d t
rqEo d d o „ E O - v m — E 00
o o ° U
cya w c L) 0 0 `a y 3 $ °`' c z
lz
a 5
__ _R > ° K `z
r ` N �•. 00 L 3 d C C D d y d _ E O O
We o y E c c € L .4 .3 'y E ° d o Z
` y L 0
3
o A o
Q ° C6 aj
V LF- O —° A ooaCc E c
E :v v yn
>
H
G
a
O = a ° c ° aui o vai s [ail x r °m' o
Q QmLa 2Q E A1-52
U
Exhibit
E U
L �
00
m
Y
V
O
a
u
0
00
e
E
z F
a
o, U
V W >>
p
6. z
pV] Qui
Gz0 c `o eC
Q �
a ~ N o
0
z 00
00 �
Sao z
Q
F_
Z "
F
Q � E
F
y
C •
v
•n y CO 7 y C fry
` U
d
t N M
CL o '0 3 aEi o
r cd U O
c E
>o 0 o f
3 c.� > a.a E c _
z
2 G. O 'D > rz
O
7 crC T 7 0cc
ami d ° `y ami mai 3 c y
C U U w u p O E
E _ i a EN o
U •C C U U tQ U N U U O
ua g E a o c rid v E o
0
Z
1-53
Exhibit {�^�
� y
C 3 �
z T
vr
V fn A Q
Q GO T
n �
u O u
m
C cc
y c y E
= c ° o U
2 ti E n—
O = 0 m
E G > A C N
E u ri
Os u
z � L � � � �
accklw Cko 00
a z Q u aci o D •= ° o E o
o
Z
O >
F■ >
OWF�„ do o5 oca
° ami o aui E ° O °' ccc.
v eu0 u =
on m r, E ' > o
ms .. c 'm o o E =
N H .1" N 0 VJ
E ° ° $ � = 3 � v aE
Y y y 00 O
..L., y' O.^LU
= E
0 in
E cc
r pEp v y a`�i y10 u G y c z
_� _ 'O•D � � .y O ai i 'C � O k 3 'y 'C C H y � � � �
ca
uc.5 3 9 —>1 vy n u m D o n n ~
sOle
:° u 91.
u v n c3 .a=i ami v a oa a>i 'm c tu m m w -
`` o as p ? = v O U O � e = � � €m � n c �
F' �, E Q .. y s y O N.E O L m y C O T
epi .: 'aov° c=a o
CJ
Exhibit
d
E u
00
� a
a
m
m
C
r
L
O
G
U
ce
O
00
C
E
E_
Z
Q
J �
av
x ° o
aza = _
C Z O o o m G
Q per, rA
e p
z
r z
Fgo z o
z > _m
zV
L•
O Q °
r z C
F CA
r
d
ld U C) W N 'D
r t .0O N U U
L ...
2 .1 Y N U M
u c 3 c v o 3 E R m N aLi c
c o �v s ° a) 3 -Z d N N > >
A E 3 � ,H y H - :� H N 3 'O •� ed
i v o aNi oNi �^ d C. 9 cd o � bD y U - ,.
p G m c Q A E c 2 0 N
m Rt 2 OY N N vi fdt m
ODCJ
C C U ed 'O >� U C N �. eC O
E s u tu y h y R c) In 2 5
`z c c 0 d r a > o R to E fl c z
o oo o X Q o v c a WO 0
00 3 � m _ > N `U, C tt N .t.. 09L .O U N
011 cd •C L .� L @ 'C U .1 O Cd
y O
- U N
d C t 7 D
X Q„' N L O N U L 7
.1 rn
N C Q mm N fd N N >
y
ld N N 3p
0
_z
I 3
1-55 U
Exhibit 1�0'1
�+ N
C O Q
U
� u
c a
Q
Q O O c
a
Y O o
U O U
C 000 N C
A
t CO
`o n c > $ a
a y N E
a c = o oU
c N E a—
O 10aj
C
C a DD u O
fi o ° o Q o own
z F � 6 � �> �
Q F 3 E u [v
av
V w T
Z h m ou o
C .0 C OA 4z N O C
W p vEa o � ' .oa ° E
'u 2 pa o t
N E O
Q O O ° I
Qr N p U a O u a� O
F e w O a e"i v
.. p z
z w �-
y m c o o c
Q O 7 p v 0W
F Gr U U
r =
(� g =_ a c c c10
u
C Q � Q 3 N � C •O N
F I.Z.
•fi_ � E v
iO U N
F VI d U Q. V C ¢•..+
a L L U •� f0
d O O A d O C
00 0 3 03 u ' v .�
0 3 m y u G. p, d �Oi" W -0 T L aci o
A
o d c
m v�- C O v m y a °' y O G •t a d N >,
C '- a`i O .d ai O y S
+' V •�? = y y 'fl O N .O s '� N y u = z
m E •� _ � � c � g 3 > °' s = y a 3: 2. E E o
_ f
R O > CL v O. C .U.. .� E ui A O
O N Y y C E g o
U 3 tYJ N E N N i0 U y a'
m C-4o — x o E D ,E N
U d m '�, 3
>
> —
>
da �
aQw i � i 3
- 6
Exhibit
N
d
E v
fsi " ,fl p
U O U
A
� = U
Cco.;
Exhibit 8-13
_N
d
Nm
•p �u Q
00
.° Q `o °ate
o
U O U
_ N
iC O
e v o a
Q�
v O G N
C U V
w E E _ c m
oC c o Cl.
O C i E _
Z J g E
d s o
° U
F
.s
.r p 4
F y e o c
° dE
azp- ri � = � a � �
Wpb E
C ISI
cm� E.
m C L S U y L N
z z p o a g o y = E
d a " N o o f =
a co
z � z
r
O C L N
zwp Z = N
C 'p O
z � U .o 0
Od
m 0 3m c c
^ z JM � . .o
? c c
�r fcuv v a
s
3 00 co 0
� •- a � .E s c
U
J > C C Y E] y d
U J
y
0 co 4) y E E
d C G0 L 00 E N N U m
� C•�." � C N O .� O L y m O
sm i oEN2 � oc c z
.Jr U U v a O C L L �'�" O C
00 m �.. 't; w � 'C 7 a O Y C'7 y O
Omo
iv C E r .E �-
U O O O ..+ OU a 4.
— D c E .
.? J m a aci - c c cu a m o
a>
"0 -0 e 2 e 2 .> o m,0 a .e E a y
o
EL- E an > r- nuc >>,,
vi E O D v v m cn a a°, 3 a m
dua.. a
1-58
Exhibit -&LI
M
U
E u
as a cn
C >,
U
o N
OU _T C
C
•i
O t � •�
C ° a CL U
v. �a
C_ U N L N
•^C m tO o c Q)
F" N A O A
z
E a•y > �
Q U � � ca �
L U"' C 7 L O
F O� o: � 4
a av o
O O Q y T
0. Q V C ° fd c3
o a co
c o
O i 7 y ami ° ` c a cu
U
ZQV� m3 . ° 2EE2a'
C U E
G7W .a as � ¢ onU° .EEU° o � v
r
oa
0c ,ZL
O Q
to O G ,D c c .• ro o
F. z o � z �omo
Q J E F lO U V v!/) '�...
C d
a to O C y
r fA
C U t
o 3 3 o m = 00 a�
y >
N L to
to y 0 ° V 7 'y0 A
y F `o cca ,e :fl y o v c m
00 0
m � oy ° y .5cycc � 3 °. c3
oE •E c y °� 3 > c `o co v c a
U c_ E „ c °_' d o ca o ooE y o
C d c °
m � -' � � •E E ° c 'o o •� o •> H � �
O E c E d ° m
CL y v ,o .0 ai c U y
° U
as o ea p 'v m d _
aj
1-59
Exhibit U'�s
OT T 'O
E C 5
U U U
Uva ccnU
u 0
y O
co - N .t.+ 'a N
c 3 p � :° c � 3 3 cO v N aci y o N u m `
00 0
aai C v E cc � c api
C C C C >T'p O .�
`•n C Cd vOi cv p p V C a A
G L
u O c co c V r'
R T rO05 ,_p .0;
v i
Z C > a
O E C 'O r
C
0
Q U n. E U E O cca ° O
C — y
co
r
,�/ W C O O 7`J t w � C d ` •7
PC C -pc r C
° 3aa
N
y A V Oq C) C N
w ❑ 2 E A � m •oT o •o
Zd0. •�• N o N �' c � .aO �.a = o = �
d = = E E 0 r
C'J w rl as U w n a cL) u
zaz
r Q
O
cc t m A `a ai
w .E m ca ..
ZW0 Z o ° � CL � V m aa = °>
O V1 oo c E v ° a s u r o ° N u o o m
a ECo
O
`—p' .3 o n`. e o ca W Ec
E t m o ca m y o a
•Z O y CuC 0` ey ca G. rOn U eD .n O i v
O Q C 0 v w N V '� A Nco� V N y, G' N V C t
F 0-4 E A-et ,c, d uL ° � m ao d � as
c � uv c _a° A c tea` 0co
A
E .0-' 0 5v� 030axioS
F N w c c O y i w
c0 O
v p O
p N .D Q C
v O C C O y 0 C E oD C C O' •� C O R O ca a s
7 O y A v _
p p t�p O N Y '0 'O p ai O d C N � C _C t 0
` y •. N a y N C N •� "' 3 .D L .> t a 0 - vOi U co
c d c = 0 cyi a t y ,c a c v Y 3 o c c
0 .. `0 3 '- = way 3 5 u ° d o A 0 a'o � � s c y c U
O N C N C E y N N y O y O t v 'C C 7> O 'O E '9 O
c 34? r = m c 0 = '0 E o a3 00.-� c y g E aow z
e E a o mco) E E � r a� � .�� s Ni ums .2 o 3 —,°, ati Z
eu
00ca O N 00 OnO
N OO- E C C 3 C C m O p •y ca O 'C N �_
c c o o o f •y .o w h 3 d c 3 mR v .E m >
Ucoc - vRco .3 $ =° � 0° '� � aaocis � ny o — o
r4 y 6= C a'.. .E V — — T N1 ❑X7
E coOq O y vii C T T U
v a E m c aci 'u m E OL .o .N C7 .E 7=
d _ Y
a $ c o c o o E c u 0 v t Q d z o ca c m
._ > 0 3 3 c! d' U E
Exhibit 15'1(0
C�
G V
LV
OL
L Q
C
Lr]
00
C
i
O
CL
CP
9.
O
DD
C
F
Z
Q
a U
� pOC, a `o 0
e,o
0
0
is
(GLZ Q u d
0
G Z
O � =
Qa ~ N on
zzZ ;
..
0
zw � z o t
pva � o
zU
OQ � C
F Z = R M
Q a A a �
nn
O N
N �
Q7
c 3 0 0 5 E A
E
c a"i .� � 3 c E E c 3
po o 3
c = o c a o c
R o o n d A o 2 o E c
O C A A
y d > 010_
cc a r o r0 a
as € °' Y _ 00 - = X = c A d 3 L y c o
0 3 uo y c y u. o v °� � r ° n� � .E z
ft ,c ._ � o � � co m c g .5 n. 3
7C u7
.r V=.V. _ u) C O t y D_ d y 'y
m p N 0 N C
3 0 C N m O V tb oo L d N
o �? !q °' ° ``° oma :° = � o
A l0 y 7 y V y u) > 7 N :: O` N > O N
C7 3 0o uj 00 cn co C l °�' v Gc] a 2 o• ❑ E w m 00° = `o. $
z
1-61 U
Exhibit
E
3a
_
o�
_
0
a
u
C
w
0
00
E
F
Z
Q
a. U
L
a � _`o 0
Oa0 sow
OrA ad
Z Q co)
d G. e4 o
DOrn
zw � z o
Z rn V g
Od
F =
d � B
F
o m R n
H
R LO IL
0 4 � .32 .22 a
w CO H A h R y O
�Q r d
C7 g E d E N E y
p E E %I., E E E
s s s
� y � y
CQ a cnQ
1-62 U
Exhibit
T
C p
O =
E
a, c U '
i pp C
cc = o
a
��
U `o0
d m %
aM'a `
U •3 .tQO d m
u o y v g
U °
U a v v c 0 y E �O n
Z 0 E = u ° = = A > E
o o
F
F C4 C
L" C y cu = P
Oi O O c0 y p `�; A R � n O v
O Q.1 O C p Y y 0 01 d O .0 n _ CL.0MO
0 FC r 0 E 0 c c c
O i C p Q )� •3 C U '3 p .O N. C .� p .�
Z Q V� O W Q 2 T 3 v O aJ y Y tcv S 0 U E 7 0
ca i>
zW .a Ua ` c � 3E °L°. y � Ua3U .0 00
.. az ;
o0z Q o y
Z W m 5 m R 3 ° a =
oo u d ` MUS a c n '� f:L Q y-0 ai
CWF •• � oani '� � cnE = � vr
c
Oz m 2 � °czoma
o as c n
� � C
co 0 O R
• a) V A .0 R y d
O a T A
C �C '
4C. C O to 2 'OC .— F-' W... c d R
R N ` p•„ 0 V C C C Y .O
C N O A O 4T� C aN V .0
ar 0O p c —W .— d ea n
y w u D E c c •E u
3 c u
y cc �.. C ,0 U aJ y = • E L L U O
0 E ° c .g m :- ° y fl a� 0 o0 y z
C V a) °p .0 U V w - 0 c m C y g
as W x $ 02 •= � 0 � ou ` p � � � O
C Z 0 d C U .>.. •� aJ y C C* n•C •L••
G O U w t 0 = p .0 cc to
` .L. r0. c
u ccQ Di � .D a C c 'C C •C � U �.V H 'C W
� u y 9
u
`O A E
o
ca u ar c � � a •.:.
R V C) L C F a) td E y _-9 z
° 3 �° a > > Q d R 3
1-63 U
Exhibit
C �
LO C N E m m
M
UacLi� � US
QO 4�.. O V N Q JO a1 0 L
c >, c u
m
cc c N as m
a
°
o > v p > = c Lou cc n .N o .cd d y c
0
n d M, � .° u
cd -` = oa � � •° 3Eoco3Tcm
E c u `0 0. 0 YL E o d o w N [x]
c . U u = ° U .� c s u
z F U � = E 9 e • E . m otz- w � •y o cs E
Q EL- v E u cc °c Q U m u O d a�ai E ° U
Z 7 a c > Ec cn ° o°'p m
0 0 .= U > o m `y
Q"'/ Par o '°O � •3 � m u ` L u v v c c ° u N v m � .� •�' y o u
0 .m.
Pr z a c=a u ^� �`-• c .°'o is ° o H u X �=
Q as u a N -- u Y o . N N c _ m
rr I�r 00 £ m m C a) U - �. pp 0 O - C y V C 7
°u c E •-' a c u 3 ° u a u 3 'c r y 3 'uu y>, N
Azo 9 — n gt � E .. d � fl _ vu
z Q V� O u ai E c ` FL- 0 •a c H c ai .O o C aEi
Qti �r N C �_'•io •� W n = O L U oC_0 G.'7 V
N N u m �- yi. c •° `L' d N E H 9 w
a' E v c o c o =° c ° m o `o u N = 0 o m c c
z W U N E = m u a_ 0. u a a� t— m N
Cxz �
OCA >
F > w
z
zwo W _ t
W r� � L � •L N
Lr �" � Y •fl 6
0 Q C2 vii C y C
F., .zr a u •" m �
F cit 0
O 0 u O
Lcts N .�
00 •= y Z) .L-. ti
om�D
C ycm � C
O m G C > A U
`cUco
EO N v O C
u < ycc
uo
m a
m � U
r Q cr V
� 6 = •t 3 � � Es o ° �
A v
= Y y N o
- 4 U
Exhibit
C °
V �
c °-
A
i pOp o •c ti
3 Q U �ti 0 3
C T•� � MD
k7 �
U �n (.UE
G c y a"i O o m- c d
00
C y C N
_ u -
•L C T y 0 U C N C d
U v L
° ° a v o v `o c a� O ao
a
w
u c y ro U .a c N cz '�. '� o. ` 'v w e
° s a 3 'v r v •° °_' o ° o °' A E 1O
� ur- m v_ c
c°Ji
E o a°i o •c° m 3 c d •c o v c 'o •n..N �'ccu R
o °
r o 3 m acu
° a o
p. V C
�+ M N y A A — GO C •@
cn 3i 3cO - fl
_ ccc
FrO �� ? - � c° � � o � ca� � 'E � c2 i•c
CY+ p B a m y R y c u
aw E cU E U b _oc
W O c@ o N O F o o
..� �- aoo� E L Q> y u y u �ora a
C Yr=
A .4 0 0 o v F o
to w
Q ° N n " E m E ° o c m -
z W �7 aLi o n e o f c�i a ° 00 o 2 -d. o " `c° ° p
z � z �
U to cO U - o 00
rG L u . Y u L o E ECQ
o
Opp
zwp Z o
tz y y 7
@
V] ew Y as
N
z � E � Eo
OQ ° 0u
U" Q Ro � u
GN
c C
d O N O
@
3cn O E Q 2
H
yC V p y O C
O a+ O a b0 °
C S E oo N C V
9
L V T• o := y
@ F
0 -0
m o C ° A
aci .4 a N �
z - , .5 o
Q —j C w
Lzl Lzl v m Y as a v n 30
C
z z > r E 3
1-65
Exhibit 8-Z1
C � Q
V T d o
E c w
v d R U S
W a O O.� 0.
W U Li]
uC)
R R
:
>
O - > A
0 ai
Cj y O a� O
` d R C
o alis
C ou c`C R s tr
F R n o >
Z •p cC E O. u
CA
Z h w w >,
R LQ 0
FOC �`oo Oo � cc � oy
Oa' O ° o `° 0-
r-
p Za � rRs oma .= V
+. R N
CLQ Vj C� C ` D u v o Rcc
� o c
Z Oar N C R p c 3 °a `cc aEi w E o
d o v d = r oq on > o
Z
E
L7, C p V >1Y � C d R •�.
�/ O Gi] W O
v >
rl A 4- �. C C A d o 0 •7 v
0 m c ? .0 3 :? o o U Y ,R
rF. •• c t c ` oR0 ctOi aui y S �¢.. cca cn
'RC a
° o R R
9 E mato i c
coO N L V i c ac
V 3 = W ,�
O Q 00 C :y C y U °
FZ a r° � E ` oo ` ou 0 .o� u °`' C� '3 O �
v .Y c � •E y 4 S a 5 3 a c
V Q 7 O o O. s R G N V R N 00 O ?) > p
V L r C ° V
ita"i y � cavi °`a � .�
d L R d C N
> R > Y R N
N U � V •V1
cc
N t U A R =
U o E R v p z
g
C — o E m o
u -o 0 H
o R v
c
cc r- z
1-66 U
Exhibit
E u � LU
m e m U 2
L
o l <
°a LW
t] 0 U
UO ¢ �
c_ ?? c
a= > a=
L = E 3 co o E 3 >
d C 50 C •E •D u v
a R a __ a �
R 3
_ c �
CU w
C N c
R OD �
O
m °° E 3 m °- ' °' 3
Z Y 7 r •C L •O 7 L R y
Q c• y c c• m c
5
m
=° cc
Z O 3 w y G y m 0 0 m � � y
o•.v m =.n E E o E
W Q = R C to U 3 m 7 ¢
y �C'n c-R o `yams a m E m V' c
cc (5 O� DtzD O r'
C Z O o e o V ¢3 0 3 0— 0. as
� 3 0 3 2 0z
Z Q r N •C R � c o d cEa d F O N � � � O O K L
via » � o� oIj
Z Z a 0 A `am co 2 cn: ca E m N
r OD A L t
m � E
Fn; �"" Z o Omomym h � � y oy0Cc
O _ m r > m o c o R U , Y o = R to R
CWF — EDc ° � O °��' � o � m � tO0E ,m
� w2 .00 >0
U to O tm. R R C m R rn O V1 'Ct� O C m 0
r > ODD C m t` C d .� y O
O Q U O y C Q am m N R - y O 3 m w0/D1 U w = '4
CrL. C
E �
7
C .i 'C .�? y 'O •O
3u �`a •:- a U
•/ Q E- t O+ .A y C C >O W R OD 'O m CL�= p u = C O
Q = 0. 3 2' c
c 0. 0
0
c m m
m D R w
L `o o m e _° O
y L y W- o
E R E m
m 7 D to u C ,O R O d
R o m U c E °�
� Q c 0� X aiom • c
H m
L L
m
C R •y OD m W AA=
O O_ E
W = R ~- R y L y = E p
u �-
on c H y � .E o 3 W
N03w .� 7 •O D [mO R C m 3
U 3 v a E R n n n 3
-67 U
Exhibit
_ y
E � c
V y A
OD
FO a O c
UO
c
> o
pG O 3 O
a o _
c •d
_ h L
c � c d) 'E
a v s a E `
�.0 c o 0 0
F. •ie � ee o �a
T
Z 7 vi C ✓+ N
c E edu aEi
0. a
O Z C O 0 c a - 'v c c N
m m
d
Z W F 3 R coN
az �
O rQi, °'
T C
Z f=7 1O Z O c a� °Q 00� °1 o •°
F
N C Q_ o m 'v
py C � � N c v N C U p p
O Q C C O y a N eLa 'O r C N p
QL ` V .0 M n fS/1 T N
VQ
OD C) a Esc
E s °L�' fi 0 v
LL•
L 3 s 0
co
v d o C T h
H t L
d r N L O V R N O
A c
o o
c >' O
@ . O
s = > t c d m
on — ya d m L
O G H d E
!O W A •n A O
ED
U . c
5 � _ ioE cpi £ 3
1-68
Exhibit
C •� Vi w
aci rn A � d
eo U
a o m. > c
UOQva
I
0
pp c c
O C cd
E 20
C c E 0
•E ua a c
F z � m .o
p" U
u�
.. 0 = a
Q . y L
y z
W Oaao uj
L1z0 L 'ao oE2 .° a
z v) o CIS 0 .
zaZ
z F 3 mJo- G N
3 .�
Fii 0 z O N O c0 O �. 00LU I
V
E a 0 ca 9 n
H 4) A 'O '2 v O td y
Q �l E_ d aci s c 0 axi Ev aci a� ami .!g I c V
ur Q F a E .a n •� v y
F U zP 0o y cc0, .0 o = n
c c
0 0
c
U O C
d CL1 � N p
a = N z
O.
m c
O Z 7 y
00 V �
r •� N N r
rL 0 p
0 Q Y
U N O C D
A •� N
g
V E i
U A o 0 3
1-69 V
Exhibit 8-zs
dog
0U
�¢
U n: Od m 0
C v 3 s
A
D L
O .� O E y
0 E o y ou oY •t N E '2 o
CO -E c u :° a p° c E A
pOp u - A 4C. 7 L A N O d
E c r = u >, ' M = m m = u
E' vmay � � 0Eati 'jc
z z d O N N u •E O N cN0 C A
-et [— v u .E a ro U .0 .0W �
z t
w o FL-
6 _ m
p� Gi eo ° B E ° i o T
a ma :. 3 0 „ Q
-z
pzp
o
c •
.� z 0
N
O O u m Ev u u ami C
Z a N o ca „ y 2 m a
mD. C C aNi O
° chi U a u
0
zwp
ca UY ys
O .. U Q) CLD
cc o ai
Z U d A 00 E o s
o E n v a
i�r Q F y c tO � •� c
— a v
_ N u N u G!Ij
U
Fy 3 y n 'E == y c o w c —' °° u
a uC— 10 cc
Cc 0 °' m .�. : u w chi •a Q y
W R A Ty N c c a� L ouE yo o f cLi 'o H ='
o°, Z" D •3 � v E s � c d o a Q N � � y • m y .a N v � cc �
Z = eas
>
Q d e .> c D p � so ,E 'o' v R mom" m E v
•" p d t0 lC u aC.. N Y V C u N C 4.
IL)
'C N C — DO Z
`_" C O y •U a0i y � eco �� _ > 'C a
cc
CA L N C R A N y V] d YO N S U — ttl y Z
cc = E � E o n. o o d al 3 Dom R � y 0 O ; 0 .0- �
eh u O A a E ca n• G T'� ` h .N eua N W C ¢ 3
N L 56 Y 'fl i > > c - a. ca s . to c •� v E c
^ v m d ° c e F- E N o u3 ce v _ N
O m 3 N t ou.3 .� c c.. p,. • c 3 c c c
1 Y o m e '. 'v .5 u y E y E v E � Q on
_ m Nyc . c
c a1°i a"i co ' c o E E
.•a> ��. c - aC 'y•- R o y 'A
a A N o o .-4 O N V o o 0 3 G N E m U
U
Exhibit ^zj
0 a i
E u c
m o
U
C T
Lr]
U
`o
u o
° R u c .u- o
CL E
Com' c yo °' E
° CL O
c E � ° Us
o — c cis c
OA
E p aOi ,R d c 00.=m °J
F U c a E ° •v'
Z a� °—HSE u > A � s
"a F
Z O d
dry C
OO. Z c
rA
V� R7 ` fl u o c aOi c o v e y i° d
E c • o o c —
Z Q rA O R G 3 A ° u aci ' U too =
> E
QyCr7 ° m
vWa ° � � Eo ° oor
U
GO
71
CL-00
Z W is o = 'ca u y � .a .rOcr > H q
r
c -DY — c oo== c c a c b > E
r ,, 3 o aL
E > m 5 • 5CLO
'an , u E m C O O
>u '0 `�'
T
9 a.. N
>
OO t.O.. .= N 000 3
V LO N H V
to
00'O
cc
�: O C H O• N
m H C 7 d O N O
•o u
on > z
O 'C ° O e a
o E E o
CL
m u C. `' m u .00 c6 r: y to:
Cc CL N
E cc
Y '3 y c W
00 0 •O H .9
• E >, ccn
r
1-71 U
Attachment A -)*Exhibit �^
ATTACHMENT A TO MMRP
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November,2000
Habitat restoration and enhancement associated with mitigation measure BIO-1 will be
monitored to document the degree of success or failure attained in achieving the performance
objectives and to identify any needed remedial actions. Monitoring will occur for 10 years
following initiation of restoration and/or enhancement. The activities are described below
and in Table A-1 and supplement the Habitat Mitigation Plan Approach (HMP) as provided
in Appendix D of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project(May 1998).
This Plan also considers biological mitigation related measures specified in the State Water
Resource Control Board's (SWRCB) Order Conditionally Granting an Extension of Time as
adopted October 19, 2000. The Summary Mitigation Plan (Attachment 1 to CEQA Findings)
itemizes the Board's biology related Orders that require additional studies and plan reviews.
This Plan will be modified, if necessary, once the studies and plan reviews ordered by the
Board are completed.
1.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The mitigation program presented in the HMP represents a practical and feasible approach to
provide compensation for wetlands, riparian, grassland, and oak woodlands that could be
eliminated by the project. Monitoring of mitigation efforts is necessary to meet Assembly
Bill 3180 legal requirements and to identify needed changes in maintenance methods,
evaluate the effectiveness and suitability of the restoration procedures, and broaden
knowledge of habitat restoration procedures.
Habitats to be mitigated include non-native grassland (191 acres), oak woodland (84 acres),
riparian woodland/forest (16.1 acres), willow woodland (35.6 acres), freshwater marsh
(0.9 acre), willow woodland understory (22.1 acres), and stream/aquatic habitat (16,050
linear feet). These habitats will be mitigated on an in-kind basis. Oak woodland, riparian
woodland, and freshwater marsh habitats will be mitigated on a 2:1 acreage ratio; grassland
and willow woodland habitats would be mitigated on a 1:1 acreage ratio. Stream/aquatic
habitat (16,050 linear feet) will be mitigated on a 1:1 basis in conjunction with the riparian
woodland enhancement and/or restoration. Hence, the required habitat replacement acreage is
as follows:
• Grassland 191 acres
• Oak woodland 168 acres
• Riparian woodlands 103 acres
• Freshwater marsh 1.8 acres
• Willow woodland understory 22.1 acres
CAWINDOWSCESKrORMIT MON PLAN-ATA.DOC A-1 1-72
!achment A -fie Exhibit
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November, 2000
• Streambed/aquatic habitat 16,050 feet (in conjunction with riparian woodland).
The required habitat replacement acreage exceeds the impacted acreage because riparian and
oak woodlands will be mitigated on a 2:1 acreage ratio. The net habitat gain will be
136 acres.
Following project approval, the City will begin the HMP implementation. First, mitigation
sites will be identified and purchased. Timing for site identification and purchase is estimated
to take 1 year. Second site-specific, restoration/enhancement plans will be developed for each
individual mitigation site and is estimated to take a minimum of 3 months total. Third, the
site-specific restoration/enhancement plans will be implemented. Restoration and
enhancement plans typically take 1 year to implement. Monitoring will occur both during
construction activities and following site construction to document the degree of success or
failure attained in achieving the performance objectives and to identify any needed remedial
actions.
Wetlands and grasslands will be monitored for a minimum of 5 years following site
construction. The 5-year monitoring period is based on the assumption that the success
criteria will be achieved within that 5-year period. If success criteria have not been met by
the end of 5 years, monitoring will continue for additional years as needed to achieve the
success criteria for 2 successive years. If achievement of success criteria at a mitigation site
appears to be infeasible, a substitute mitigation measure, that achieves comparable habitat
values, will be implemented. Monitoring will be complete when the City verifies in writing
to agency resource staff that the performance standards have been achieved and no further
mitigation is required.
Riparian, streambed/aquatic, and oak woodland habitats will be monitored for a minimum of
10 years following revegetation. The 10-year monitoring period is based on the assumption
that the success criteria will be achieved within 7 years after restoration/enhancement
activities and sustained for 3 successive years without human intervention beyond scheduled
maintenance activities. If success criteria have not been met by the end of 10 years,
monitoring will continue for additional years as needed to achieve the success criteria for
3 successive years. If achievement of success criteria at a mitigation site appears to be
infeasible, a substitute mitigation measure, that achieves comparable habitat values, will be
implemented. Monitoring will be complete when the City verifies in writing to agency
resource staff that the performance standards have been achieved and no further mitigation is
required.
CAWINDOWSIDESKTOPIMIT MON PLAN•ATA.DOC A-2 1-73
Aft tent A -lb Exhibit j$-3
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November, 2000
2.0 PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Performance standards are used to determine to what degree the restoration and enhancement
actions are successful in achieving the overall mitigation goals and to assess the replacement
of lost functions and values of habitats. Performance standards for new and enhanced habitats
are listed in Table A-1. These standards should be achieved 5 years after grassland or
wetland habitat construction or enhancement efforts begin and 10 years after riparian or oak
woodland habitat construction or enhancement efforts begin. If performance goals are not
met, replanting and re-seeding, with continued monitoring and maintenance, will occur.
Vegetation Performance Standards
Vegetation performance standards represent values that document a trend toward the
successful establishment of desired plant species and cover for each habitat. Cover values
among the different habitats vary because of different growth patterns. Percent vegetation
cover and plant species diversity will be measured at each site to determine success or
failure.
At least 80 percent of constructed and enhanced habitat acreage must meet the performance
standards described for that habitat for the mitigation program to be deemed successful. Any
portion of a mitigation site meeting the vegetation performance standard will be credited
toward the acreage total. This performance standard will ensure that the mitigation program
will provide more acreage than that permanently impacted by the proposed project, with a
substantial net gain of habitat value (a net gain of 136 acres).
No concentrations of weeds larger than 8 feet by 8 feet in diameter in wetland areas, and
200 feet by 200 feet in diameter in grassland, riparian, and oak woodland areas will be
allowed. No more than 15 percent of the total vegetative cover may be dominated by invasive
weedy species.
Container plant and seedling survival will be assessed annually. If mortality occurs,
replanting and/or reseeding, with continued monitoring and maintenance, will be required.
Replanting and/or reseeding will occur annually, as needed. If performance criteria standards
are achieved after 3 years and maintained for 2 years for the wetland and grassland
restoration/enhancement areas, and after 7 years and maintained for 3 years for the riparian
and oak woodland restoration/enhancement areas, the HMP will be considered complete and
no further action will be required. If the performance standards are not achieved, replanting
and reseeding will occur. Monitoring will continue for 2 years after the last plantings in
CIWINDOWSIDESI(TOPUT MON PLAN-ATA.DOC A-31-74
Vtachment .A 'b Exhibit ('3�
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November, 2000
wetland and grassland habitats and 3 years after the last planting in riparian and oak
woodland habitats.
Planted trees should have a minimum of 2 inches in basal diameter, be a minimum of 6 feet
tall, have survived 3 years with no supplemental irrigation, and 2 years with no protection
from herbivores. Understory must be comprised of a blend of native grasses and shrubs
dominating 70 to 80 percent of woodland areas. In addition, at least 16,050 linear feet of
enhanced or restored stream/aquatic habitat must be present in the riparian woodland. A
restoration parcel may provide both stream restoration credit (in linear feet) and riparian
restoration credit(in acres).
Wildlife Performance Standards
Although wildlife species and their use of the mitigation sites will be monitored during the
5- and 10- year monitoring periods, numerical performance standards are not specified. The
vegetation performance standards guarantee that habitat requirements for wildlife will be
achieved.
3.0 MONITORING METHODS
Vegetation Methods
Typical plant vegetation sampling methods will be used during the 5-year grassland and
wetland monitoring period and during the 10-year oak woodland and riparian monitoring
period. For example, plant species composition and percent cover will be determined for
individual mitigation sites by placing transects with sampling plots throughout the site and
recording relevant data, such as:
• Plant cover, growth, survivorship and weed cover(all habitat types)
• Hydrologic conditions (wetland and riparian areas only)
• Oak, willow, sycamore, and cottonwood tree growth based on measurements of vigor,
height, and diameter at breast height(oak woodlands and riparian areas only).
• Percent cover of overstory to understory ratio (oak woodlands and riparian areas only).
Monitoring will also occur within the entire mitigation site and will include recording
relevant data such as:
CAWINDOWSIDESKTORMIT MON PLAN-ATA.DOC A-4 1-75
Attachment A 4b Exhibit 8'9
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November,2000
• Removal and replacement of all dead and diseased planted species
• Watering on a strictly "as needed" basis with gradual weaning schedule
• Removal of invasive species
• Placement, removal, and repair of plant protection devices
Qualitative information about general site conditions (e.g., wildlife use, vegetation
establishment trends, weed invasion, evidence and extent of erosion, and the need for
remedial actions) will also be collected during the monitoring activities.
Permanent photo-documentation points will be established at each mitigation site. They will
be marked with T-bar fence posts that will be removed after completion of the monitoring
period. Color photographs will be taken each year at the time of monitoring to qualitatively
document plant establishment, hydrologic conditions, and other site conditions. The
photographs will be included in the annual monitoring report to allow comparison between
monitoring years.
Monitoring will occur 4 times per year for 2 years and 2 times per year for each year
thereafter. If plantings appear to be stressed, monitoring will be more frequent.
Wildlife Methods
Wildlife monitoring methodology is designed to document wildlife use of mitigation sites.
The value of the mitigation site to wildlife can be determined by documenting wildlife use at
the mitigation sites during the 5-year monitoring period in grassland and wetlands and
10-year monitoring period in oak woodlands and riparian habitats. Wildlife monitoring will
occur during the years scheduled for quantitative vegetation monitoring
Wildlife surveys will be conducted in spring and are intended to determine the species and
type of activity at each mitigation site. Monitoring will consist of visiting a portion of the
reference and mitigation wetlands to record observations of vertebrate and invertebrate
wildlife species and estimates of the number of each species observed. Surveys will be
conducted between sunrise and 11:00 a.m. when bird activity is highest. Surveys will not be
conducted during periods of rain,high winds, or extreme cold, which severely inhibit wildlife
activity and detectability. Evidence of wildlife use such as tracks, nests, and droppings also
will be recorded.
Wildlife monitoring methods will also include net-dipping of ponded areas in the mitigation
wetland areas to determine possible use of the wetlands by amphibian species.
CIWINDOWSIDESKTOPIMIT MON PLAN-ATA.DOC A-S 1-76
ttachment A 4btxhibit 6�p
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November,2000
4.0 REPORTING AND SCHEDULE
Reports of monitoring results will be prepared following each year of monitoring during the
monitoring program. The annual monitoring period will be from January through September.
The monitoring period will begin the first growing season following plant installation.
Each monitoring report will detail the results of the monitoring for the previous year. The
reports will provide a list of names, titles, and affiliations of persons conducting the
monitoring and preparing the report and photographs taken of each mitigation site. Summary
results of the previous years' monitoring will also be included in the reports. A final report
will contain a quantitative analysis of attainment of performance standards at the conclusion
of the monitoring program. The City will notify appropriate agencies when the final
performance standards have been met.
5.0 MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES AND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
If the performance standards are not met following the 5 year monitoring effort in wetlands
and grassland habitats and 10 year riparian and oak woodland habitats, the causes of failure
to meet these performance standards will be determined and results will be reported to the
resource agencies. Replanting or seeding will occur each year until the objectives are
achieved. Monitoring will continue for 2 years after the last planting necessary to meet the
above standards in wetland and grassland habitats and 3 years after the last planting
necessary to meet the standards in riparian, stream/aquatic, and oak woodland habitats.
Ongoing plant maintenance and weeding will occur throughout the monitoring period by the
restoration contractor. Activities may include maintaining the irrigation system, maintaining
the health of planted species, replanting and reseeding one time per year to ensure plant and
seed establishment, and removing non-native invasive species.
6.0 CONTINGENCY PLANS
Unforeseen circumstances may cause delays in the implementation of the restoration and
enhancement activities, or may cause failure to meet performance goals in the proposed
period of time for measuring success (i.e., 5 and 10 years after planting). Contingency actions
for minor and major events are described below:
CAWINDOWSTESKTORMIT MON PLAN-ATA.DOC A-E
Attachment A '}a Exhibit
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November, 2000
Container Plant Damage and Poor Seed Germination Due to Drought Conditions
In the event that severe drought affects the integrity of the newly planted mitigation site, the
City or their revegetation contractor must ensure that imported water is available for
irrigation use.
Erosion Due to Excessive Rainfall
In the event that excessive rainfall and runoff at a mitigation site jeopardize the integrity of
the newly-planted mitigation site, the City or their revegetation contractor must repair
erosion control devices and take other measures to ensure protection of the revegetated areas.
If the erosion causes significant damage to any part of or all of the mitigation site such that
applicable performance goals are not met during the 5- and 10-year monitoring periods, the
City will revegetate the affected areas.
Damage to Mitigation Sites Due to Fire
In the event that fire causes damage to any part of or all of the mitigation sites, replacement
planting would not be required.
Poor Plant Establishment or Growth
Diseased plants or unsuccessfully seeded areas will be replanted or reseeded on an annual
basis during the monitoring period.
In the event that plant establishment and/or seed germination performance fails to meet half
of the quantitative performance goals during either (1) the 5-year monitoring period for
grassland and wetland restoration/enhancement, or (2) the 10-year monitoring period for
riparian and oak woodland restoration/enhancement, the City will reseed or replant as
necessary. If the goals are not met for either (1) 2 consecutive years in the grassland or
wetland areas, or (2) 3 consecutive years in the riparian or oak woodland areas, the City will
contact the involved agencies and present a contingency revegetation plan. The contingency
plan will identify the causative factors and provide remedial action to increase plant
establishment, seed germination, and/or vegetation growth in the affected areas or to
undertake mitigation at an alternative site.
C:IWINDOWS%DESKTORMIT MON PIAN-ATA.DOC A-7 1-78
Attachment A '}d Exhibit 8
ATTACHMENT A
MONITORING PLAN FOR HABITAT RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
SALINAS RESERVOIR EXPANSION PROJECT
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
November, 2000
Weed Infestation
In the event that weeds invade a mitigation site or portions of a mitigation site such that
revegetation is poor or significantly hampered despite the efforts of the City to remove
weeds, the City will contact involved agencies and present a contingency plan that involves
the control and possible eradication of weeds from the affected areas, followed by a new
revegetation effort. No concentrations of weeds larger than 8 feet by 8 feet in diameter in
wetland areas and 200 feet by 200 feet in diameter in grassland, riparian, and oak woodland
areas will be allowed. No more than 15 percent of the total vegetative cover may be
dominated by invasive weedy species.
7.0 RESPONSIBLE PARTIES
The City of San Luis Obispo will be fully responsible for the implementation and success of
the monitoring plan. Funds for the implementation of the plan, including contractors and
materials, will be derived from City revenues and funding sources.
CAWINDOWSCESUOPWIT MON PLAN•ATA.DOC A-8 1-79
achment A 40 Exhibit 8` �
e Nf� Cm NGU yVm CN
V L N r
a L � T 00 CV `y
Eg`
v E v c
Y
c `
oyLT
�� E Tn
E u
'N m•O � Yn �• o f ° u o o _ E
u eo__•u E � ? m w
J
Y NY OO LE e' C c= =6 EFi
GLCgy 4 VUL. hN� a=D -6'oL
YNNY E E -4G'CY
m L T 3
U L EYi �d Ta s i
Y On OC YLV _6 �� 3C SVO >y9 V9bY, u` N
F G N O N
m c g �L ° � �L� m ru �� E a -0 1° °o a._�
Z VY Y V C
Q 0 VJ� Y TOp� AJ �n e' D'C.^Lyi� Y 'O�LCVa
S^ N NC
r/1�N S m O
_ m C C Y Z W i._ m
Y `N m �S J Y mp� Y T Y C C� i vM C,G
~ Y S VE W Y T L
F v0 Y_1`m =�3s m. oY� _ cn �m ¢
E : v� o$
u m g EEi vp , ET
F 0. �= ueooEra000 esry=.ts c`o��c°N � mC1n a`m °cE
fr] cN �
O G e
zeo8 o� g
�0. O �1r,
L 4 V C'�' .`y > C V 9V > C
Baa
W
ZOp
T � C
-• QvF o _ 3 avE d_ m s.no
= Z
u o c 'e oY'
Q E v E Ee�`o SEE u °o ¢ i
Q Q Vj Z
F O O ZO
< o c O 9 3 ' n O P L m a >G
W W 'E 2 Yf r E c m m= 'c c u '^ �-
E. f7 : EN '� �' m w� � .oda Ej
o a y; E
y
Q r y 00 C V C ,y C C 3 Tn• Y C V C OLS 6C O
m.o f3 f'c f � nu3 E� `o wo fv � En
96
ch • • • • y a 3 �?
� O
C m�m aC NN O V C O C Y O_
CQ C L= O m C P A C C L C O
µJ 3
O O y v
v d
¢ m Y
e c
m n $
m W
v = a
m m
W V m m W G
G L
f<O U u $
O G ' m� -80-
{L m 6 Y 6 U
Attachment A i*Exhibit
E y c c 3 C `mC u c c 3 c •E d++9
CI O J m m N C V 9
i,ei� ,y, `y u u .° :. oi� E 2 E A c
O rry.E Cm L m04 N L C N.E 9 E.E 9 g
E o 3 J c � � Y O• o J c gg u q y n i-ti -m
IMI
6v 3 m u•$ a� 3 m u _ �.
u r$ y o J Y
y Y
$E m3= _ �•N > �
L N V m m VE, m
H2
6 O
V Y J L 9 C
; -
Y
y L r e E-
0
"Q Z eE w°o.00 mnoo 14
F 069 C
V Y � > J ��
C V Y = V V G Y =
O � z
zooe 9
zoo o v
Qxot
s s E
Ww .� Q 61 u _d " u _d Yu u uC
M :�/. z x p O
W y "t L� y L y, Y L Ti V V y y
Yr G @ y @ y — ^ C T
FOL O - E > E E > a �E Q
�.o o ocs o o o
O u > 01 u > O y > 9 = d
F a e
V] U �"' emu 3 @m 3 ? @ •mu u ` aE
Q ° u o u
•Z l O_ > OO O_ > 00 L O_ > E U v C
,_I m N m N m N = O
Q •� w C Y C E w C Y C •E u pp E C •C 9
r' C•C O p O C G O p O O C C O O O cc
L u
d
V � m
I� •� W m 9 y E QC 9 0 =a y@ p
Q n m@@ CCC ��_ m m NY A e
m !!•�-. OnN 9 eN O 09 V O O mLL O r Y
Gj N CL _ N Y
N p 6 0 m b` m N O C 0 V W`
m a'-
V
� G
O O U
00— '0— V O da O
•
G •L 6> 6 i � e u � y C 'y
F�Fca ca u° = - of
am aA zaE � A�° a�
0 0 0
� a
S
0 G u S y z
^C y 0 y Y > o
t'12 t N
12
u cu E
m� @ 'uw u= o
f E• E 3 Ey
g LL
= O m
06
mi u aCa ma 1-81
u
ltachment A -�DExhibit
y _ °
O J C
o V O °C L= V"-
NV. Y — oo cg+y °pv
k! E E u u a mpy u �mr>c um'—N'� E •9
ELnE $ uu� crou YE^t ov °v�L—mao
�'o " t'u �a c - c2gDVAm co� u �cc
n -L c_ c v c E u eu9 vt o.E ami
ri � wum CaEv 3 $•3 c�� i. vmv `oC Gu'iW
9 C q
.E'IL
o f
�V Y L EL CL N
n N L
o y, uu� ° N ° E
u`o n m u o•c i
o`"t
> >
•, Y m k > T T c9� �
N yU
�• p' 09 N� e ° �_ O E
N u N L N 6 V A - C m
Z �mv� �t °
�¢
U W
O Q C n L' > N t m V mZ n N 09 C V
a Z is a Ey'=
c_-
0. O Q v u > > a,° cu Eo - mL!1t
5.
Z O O C c o u
W 0 t 3Tv�c
o
a =1c yc � N N c�'N m Y E
E 9 °i ti W u c E u's e•�o E u E e
� � Q � = c•c tib o• EE tee . i.� m � p < m oo=
QOyZ w c ou U a ° eE o ��N o '„ `oc ov
'C. u N E m c�
F > W. 2 O � 32u$`o L ° N c' a Nuu —s cE c >'L
9• Z evro a`o _ o = E d Eu cc°°- cep .4t marc
wOF pge Nu 0p6" 5,MN c'8
Vi �+ V c ° v E u ° o f U '- a,'..
o 0 E _ u a m y� 2 cc `o umS m Em @- c
^W7 (ter EeO �o9u o� �u@5 _ >v' o� ' u dv�' "c ,0,
E9o. u Ga —oL n va, No QcQ2u o '^ E� °tE
y !• mn'�a= mu u Y m m � E m Y r ? m nu
Q G GL pUV = = LG ° LO' _amu
z U ° CGO � ° � L4U.. � mTN EY 4YC muE Y Lu
_ r m0NCpCp mg a %L O9 y9 L = G•C .. _C O eEW
8 C N'Z U Y m C Y 00 C E YG> -a V 9 O C Y y; C C O� o =,a
Q Y $= m e o 0 p o E9 E'-u CCC �o me Eo•
V _m E E'••5 m E U 69
W
y �a Ea`ranE n0�? • • E
}
� qN E g u � ecc-u
go 0c
:y g `-D3V� > 04 m Ca2 �o oNSCE
O m'6 m Q 2w -E C Y N C V O Y N 4 9 Cy C G L
Y
'''C 2'oovE �YaI�t� uyypa E
O Or
C T C 0 C C
O O f3 y O O O O m0 O O
u a u• u E
o> a 2 2 9 2 E m V 2
`u c L._ p C enc e0o Tc
~� Q m Ua fk� ap OuE °u Y5— °u
0 0
m � e �u� 'J^ amiQ9 9 L
? L °
C
6
u n u'� ri c ut .•d °:'o�
n n V C
= u N E aEg o'os Z'e`uo cEco
Y - e E-`u,•-mNhu oe,c
0 rJV' C L m : �°'3 Y�a v e LL m �9!•
� E � EQ2m ca
ai^ E u �L`L� u� yu a.. vm ✓� ✓.
E = u > om E95 ui >,og. Eociu c E
.O Nom'm L u E Y eE uy
OE O—Y'a 3o�'C='sE mZ
Attachment A -}'*Exhibit 12-
ea
T
u
� y c
F-
� yTc
Q� EEcmps c_ E = Eom m .
E n9•m. "�c av 9 c� ,� E
00 ttl = N V C y 9 D 6
>
oE"c � $'w � 8sEve vE
O N C 6 6 =
O O
9'N-
V V L y
N O
Q N D y Ep 9
W L p N
0 L C O 9 y L _
U ENr�O yO0
Y U q
.". A .2.8 E
�
z
C4 d �s adv` e c
co
> > c u
0 3
99cc _ ter
W Eel
V]O ,z < e., m
z O u E o
u
mQ: z
u a i. > 0 m
Qo � z
FaoO z
cin A
viVF ;mom � ode
� f 6
o' v o EL
Z
'a
h Ohm E w� `Y9
O � o
-a =- �sre
cc 0
y^ ca
o:
m u
•Emco S
a ��
E n u
m Y
uQ
•O q C L O � V -:
C N
7
�.e•La Q 066
Y O
0 D L
• Y =m o E o o] m u E o c
cZ V 6=
L
m
P.91-83
I �5 l5 A /2E:SEIL TD RE?EIVED
M(Z- 0AWM" i;4/1lf Nov 9 2000
Mr. Arthur G. Baggett Jr., rola �l Phil Ashley LO CITY CLERK
Acting Chief/Chair �PjA-Fish and Wildlife Consultants
State Water Resources Control Boa' California Sportfishing Protection
P. O. Box 100 Alliance (CSPA)
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100 1586 La Cita Court,
Chiefs fax no.: 916-657-0932 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-5449741 (home phone)
11 756-2505 (work phone)
September 17, 2000
Subject: Following are my comments as a fish and wildlife biologist for CSPA
relative to CSPA's participation rights to comment on the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) Draft Order "WR 2000-_" of 8/24/2000 titled "In the
Matter of the Petition for Extension of Time of the City of San Luis Obispo
Permit 5882 (Application 10216)" regarding San Luis Obispo City's Proposed
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project.
Dear Mr. Baggett:
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of CSPA on the
Subject SWRCB Draft Order of 8/24/00 (hereafter referred to as Draft Order).
I provided my fish and wildlife biologist specialist/professional qualifications
statement to the SWRCB for its October 12, 13, and 18, 1999, hearing that
provided the basis for the SWRCB Draft Order of 8/24/00. I also provided similar
personal professional informations to the SWRCB in CSPA Exhibits BB and DD
submitted and accepted at the October 1999 hearing. So I will not recover that
personal vitae here.
I will now comment on the SWRCB Draft Order in 3 sections: (1) legal issues, (2)
issues downstream of the Salinas Dam, and (3) issues upstream of the Salinas
Dam.
I. Legal Issues:
As others representing CSPA are attornies, I will not go into great detail on
several legal concerns. But I do want to bring these issues up for the record as
the timeframe provided by the SWRCB has made it difficult for CSPA
representatives to fully coordinate our comments on the Draft Order.
A. The City Did Not Use Due Diligence in putting the Project Water to Beneficial
Use- The SWRCB claims in the Draft Order that the City has shown due
diligence since the completion of the Salinas Dam in 1942 to put the
Reservoir's entire water supply to beneficial use. The Dam's 19' high gate was
not installed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (hereafter referred to as the
Corps) when the Dam was built due to seizmic safety considerations.
However, the SWRCB's claim that the City has shown due diligence in the
subsequent 58 years since the Dam was completed to put the entire Project
water to beneficial use is unfounded. The SWRCB makes this claim by stating
"San Luis Obispo has diligently pursued the reservoir expansion by taking
2
actions to facilitate a property transfer between the.Corps and a local entity, to
resolve the issue of duplicate permits, to identify project funding, and to
comply with CEQA." (page 15, paragraph 2).
No one that I know of is questioning that the City has shown due diligence
throughout the 1990's to attempt to put the Project's entire water supply to
beneficial use.
However, except for unsupported statements by the City, the Draft Order refers
to no evidence, other than in the 1990's, that any of the above quoted diligent
steps took place prior to 1990. Regarding these unsupported City statements the
Draft Order states "Witnesses for San Luis Obispo testified that there were a
number of meetings between the Corps and San Luis Obispo, and at times, the
County, between 1971 and 1999 to resolve the issue of which local entity should
acquire the facilities." (page 15, paragraph 2). This statement does not prove
that any of these meetings took place prior to 1990. And even if one or a few
meetings of possibly a few hours each did take place prior to 1990, that alone
could not represent due diligence on the part of the City to put the entire
Project water supply to beneficial use over a 48-year period from 1942 to 1990.
To the contrary, all of the evidence referred to in the Draft Order proves that
only in the 1990's did the City use diligence to put the entire Project water to
beneficial use. The Draft Order demonstrates the simple issue of resolving the
duplicate permits was stipulated to in 1995 (page 15, paragraph 3). And the
Draft Order demonstrates that Project funding and CEQA compliance efforts
were all not acted on until "the years between 1993 and 2001." (page 16,
paragraph 2).
If the standard established by the SWRCB for a jurisdiction to show due
diligence to put a projects' water to beneficial use over a 58 year period is
maybe at most have one or a few meetings about the project over the first 48
years of the project, then the SWRCB is making a mockery of the due diligence
concept.
What the SWRCB should do in this case is to modify the Draft Order (1) to void
the City's existing Permit 5882 for the City failing to show due diligence over a
58-year period to put the Salinas Reservoir entire water supply to beneficial
use and (2) to, therefore, disapprove the proposed Project, and (3) to take no
further action on the Project, unless the City chooses at a later date to apply
for a new permit.
B The SWRCB Has Turisd+_ction to Determine the Legal Adequacy of the ER:
Several places in the Draft Order the SWRCB makes statements similar to "the
SWRCB does not have the authority to make a determination concerning the
legal adequacy of San Luis Obispo's EIR." (page 11, paragraph 1 and page 22,
paragraph 2). This is a tactic used by the SWRCB in the Draft Order to justify
approving the Project, which the Draft Order does (page 21, paragraph 1),
while admitting in the Draft Order that the ER is inadequate (page 31,
paragraph 2, and page 32, paragraph 4). It is obvious, without my quoting
either from CEQA or CEQA case law, that a responsible public trust agency
(which the SWRCB is, page 21, paragraph), that has the authority to approve or
disapprove a project based on the environmental adeqaucy of the ER, clearly
3
has the legal authority to make a determination on the legal adequacy of the
EIR, as well as its environmental adequacy.
On the one hand, the SWRCB needs to be commended for coming to the correct
conclusion that the EER is inadequate in concluding the Project will not have
significant adverse impacts on steelhead downstream of the Salinas Dam
(pages 31 and 32). On the other hand, it is untenable for a trust agency as the
SWRCB to assert that whenever a trust agency determines that an EIR is
inadequate, it has to approve the project because under CEQA (or any other
public trust law) it has no authority not to approve the project. By asserting
this the SWRCB is even more untenably asserting that whenever the SWRCB, or
any other responsible California trust agency, concludes in their
administrative proceedings that an EIR is inadequate, the public must take the
trust agency to court to prove the trust agency's admission the EIR is
environmentally inadequate is the same thing as the trust agency admitting
the EIR is legally inadequate under CEQA.
The courts would be clogged to a standstill if every California public trust
agency made the same assertions the SWRCB does here, in turn forcing the
public to use the courts in every instance to get trust agencies to do what CEQA
requires them to do— rule on the legal as well as the environmental adequacy
of the EIR, which for all practicle purposes is the same thing under CEQA.
In unfortunately coming to the wrong conclusion in the Draft Order that the
SWRCB has no authority to rule on the legal adequacy of the San Luis Obispo
City (hereafter referred to as the City) EIR, the SWRCB only addressed Paso
Robles position that the EIR is inadequate (page 10, bottom, and page 11, top).
The Draft Order does not address CSPA's major position that the EIR is grossly
inadequate in many areas and a Supplemental EIR (SEER) needs to be done
before the SWRCB considers approving the Project.
For Example, in my written comments for the October 1999 hearing on the
Project and the adequacy of the City's EIR (.CSPA Exhibit BB), I covered a
spectrum of issues where the EIR was inadequate and the SWRCB therefore
needed to require that the City do a SEIR before proceeding further with the
Project. I repeatedly made this recommendation to the SWRCB in CSPA Exhibit
BB after extensive discussion of each major issue where the EIR was
inadequate[
After extensive discussion in CSPA Exhibit BB of each major environmental
issue where the EIR was inadequate, I made the recommendation in the
following places in CSPA Exhibit BB that the..SWRCB require that the City do a
SEIR before the SWRCB proceeds further with the Project: (1) cumulatively
significant adverse impacts with other projects, page 4; (2) cumulatively
significant adverse downstream flow impacts of the existing Salinas Dam
combined with the proposed Project to raise the Salinas Dam 19', page 6; (3)
significant adverse downstream flow impacts caused by the proposed Project
by itself downstream of the Dam, pages 12, bottom, page 13, top half, page 22,
and (4) significant adverse environmental impacts upstream of the Dam, page
25.
Nowhere in the Draft Order that I saw does the SWRCB address these
recommendations by CSPA to require the City to do a SEIR on these issues very
inadequately covered or not at all covered in the original EIR, before the
4
SWRCB proceeds furhter with the Project. In fact, of the many issues CSPA
brought up in written, oral, and exhibit testimony and evidence at the October
1999 SWRCB hearing, the only CSPA issue that is partly addressed in the Draft
Order, relative to the SWRCB requiring more information from the City than is
in the existing EIR, as I previously covered herein, is the likelyhood the
proposed Project would have significant adverse impacts on steelhead and
their habitat downstream of the Salinas Dam (page 31 and 32). But instead of
the SWRCB requiring the City to do a SEiR on this issue once flow studies are
done for the 14.3 mile Salinas River Canyon stretch of the River immediately
downstream of the Dam, the Draft Order merely says that after the SWRCB has
approved the Project the City needs to study the proposed Project impacts on
steelhead and their habitat in this stretch of the River.
Based on the foregoing discussion, what the SWRCB should have done, in part
based on the SWRCB concluding the EIR is inadequate, is require that the City
do a SEIR on all the issues discussed above that were very inadequately or not
at all addressed in the existing EIR before the SWRCB proceeds further with the
Project. That is still what the SWRCB needs to do relative to the CEQsA issues.
This concludes the Legal Issues section of my comments on the Draft Order.
However, the SWRCB should consider that all my subsequent comments on
environmental and ecological issues downstream and upstream of the Salinas
Dam relative to the Draft Order have legal as well as administrative
significance.
H. Issues Downstream of Salinas Dam:
As I stated previously, the SWRCB is to be commended for coming to the
conclusion in the Draft Order that the Proposed Project, contrary to the
conclusion of the EIR, could have significant impacts on steelhead and the
riverine ecosystem they are reliant on downstream of the Dam (page 31 and
32). The SWRCB primarily comes to this conclusion based on the EIR using
average annual hydrological data instead of monthly hydrologic data to
conclude from (page 32, paragraph 4). The SWRCB then concluded in the Draft
Order that monthly Dam spill figures (which the EIR contained) are better
than annual averaged Dam flow release figures for analysing to make
conclusions about the Project's adverse impacts on steelhead and the
downstream Salinas River ecosystem (page 33, paragraph 2). .
The SWRCB then made this analysis of the EIR monthly spill data and
concluded in the Draft Order "SWRCB staff has prepared Table 1 (attached),
which examines the project's impacts on a monthly basis, and which
demonstrates that the project may indeed have an impact on steelhead if they
are present." (page 33, paragraph 2). However, the SWRCB first grossly
simplifies and then therefore wrongly concludes in the Draft Order that
"CSPA's other analysis provides a single value obtained by averaging 52 years
of data (CSPA BB.) This does not provide the level of specificity needed to
analyze impacts." (page 25, paragraph 2).. CSPA exhibit BB is my written
comment letter submitted and accepted for the SWRCB hearing of Oct. 12, 13,
and 18, 1999, on the proposed Project.
In my multi-paged analyses of the hydrologic data in the M1 I did use some
annually averaged figures for the long period since the Project was built in
5
the early 1940's. I did this to show that, contrary to the EIR's conclusuion the
Project would not significantly impact steelhead and their downstream Salinas
River ecosystem, one could use annually averaged figures generated from the
E1R data to come to the opposite conclusion that the Project would have
significant adverse impacts on steelhead and their Salinas River ecosystem
downstream of the Dam.
These analyses I made are still valid since spills, which the SWRCB uses in the
Draft Order to show the proposed Project could have significant impacts on
steelhead and their habitat downstream of the Dam, are only one source of
Salinas River water the Dam Project impacts. As I discussed in CSPA Exhibit BB,
spills from the Dam occur so rarely (about one third of the years) and in so few
months in the years they do exist, that spills from the Dam are not adequate to
maintain the sustainable existence of steelhead downstream of the Dam (CSPA
Exhibit BB, page 8, bottom, page 11, bottom, and page 12, paragraph 12).
I agree with the SWRCB conclusion in the Draft Order that spill data shows that
the proposed Project would have significant adverse impacts on steelhead and
their Salinas River habitat downstream of the Dam. But the SWRCB needs to
acknowledge that these spills are so infrequent due to the existing Dam, and
will be less frequent and intense with the proposed Project raising the Dam
19", that constant operational water releases from the pipes at the bottom of
the Dam, and not rare Dam-topping spills, are what is needed to maintain a
sustainable population of steelhead downstream of the Dam.
The SWRCB's reliance to date on the 1972 "lave Stream Agreement" (ISA) that
provides that a mere trickle of water visible in the Salinas River downstream
of the Dam is presumptive proof steelhead and other aquatic species survival,
maintenance, and restoration needs and requirements are being met is
environmentally and ecologically unacceptable. Especially when promulgated
by of a California trust agency as the SWRCB.
Nearly my entire hydrological flow analyses in CSPA Exhibit BB (pages 8
through 17) of the adverse impacts the existing Dam has and the proposed
Project of raising the Dam 19' would have on steelhead and their River habitat
in the Canyon downstream of the Dam is based on the very inadequate flows
released from the Dam pipes that meet the absurd "visible trickle"
requirements of the ISA but do not meet the requirements of steelhead to
sustainably survive in the River downstream of the Dam.
So, I strongly object to the SWRCB Draft Order ignoring or rejecting my
important hydrological flow analyses mostly made from the existing EIR data
that demonstrates that the pipe flow releases from the Dam to meet the ISA
requirement of a visible trickle in the River are very inadequate to meet the
survival, maintenance, and restoration needs of threatened steelhead and
other aquatic species downstream of the Dam.
The danger of the SWRCB using only rare monthly spill data in the Draft Order
to conclude there could be a significant impact on steelhead and their River
habitat downstream of the Dam, is that the SWRCB may ultimately try to use a
modification of rare spill events to then conclude the proposed Project would
not have a significant impact on steelhead and their habitat. Whereas, the
obvious is that no matter how rare spill events might be modified by the City's
operation of the Dam, spill events can never by themselves or in combination
6
with the currently inadequate LSA meet the survival, maintenance, and
restoration needs of steelhead downstream of the Dam. These steelhead needs
must be met with steady flows on a daily, hourly, and minutely basis being
released from the Dam pipes through operational changes of the existing Dam
operation proceedures.
In my written comments in CSPA Exhibit BB, I provided the SWRCB with
extensive discussion and supplemental CSPA exhibits to show that a monthly-
averaged analysis of flows below the Dam, whether spill data or flow release
data, is inadequate by itself to show if there is or is not water being released
from the Dam on a daily, hourly, and minutely basis to keep steelhead and
other fish and aquatic species in good condition below the Dam as required by
Fish and Game Code Section 5937 (CSPA Exhibit BB, pages 14 and 15).
Supplementing this discussion were 4_photographs. I referred to that I took
4/23/99 on the Salinas River in the Salinas River Canyon about 5 miles below
-thie Salinas Dam on Mr. Otto Schmidt's property. These shotographs showed
that virtually no water was being released from the Dam (2 photos on page 2 of
CSPA Exhibit Of, and photos 1 and 2 of Exhibit 2 of CSPA Exhibit DD, my
comment letter justifying the preservation of CSPA's Environmental Protest
against the proposed Project). This evidence was further supplemented by my
discussion in CSPA Exhibit BB (pages 14 & 15) of daily flow data CSPA obtained
from San Luis Obispo County conclusively proving that for that date of
4/23/99,_the City-only released 0.07 cfs (cubic feet per second) from the Dam
liereas 11.6 cfs was flowing into the Salinas Reservoir for the day of 4/23/99
(CSPA Exhibit K).
This discussion in CSPA Exhibit BB further pointed out that for the critical
water flow period of the entire months of March and April, 1999, while 27 cfs
on average flowed into the Reservoir, the City only released 0.07 cfs for the
entire 2 months. Under no system of analysis and measurement, "Live Stream
Agreement" or any other, can a 0.07 cfs flow release from the Dam represent
adequate flows to keep steelhead and other fish and aquatic species in good
condition as required by Code Section 5937, the Federal and State Endangered
Species acts, CEQN, NEPA, or any other public trust law.
Based on the foregoing discussion, the SWRCB must not ignore or reject my
extensive monthly and daily hydrologic flow analyses in CSPA Exhibit BB.
This is especially important because my above discussed flow analyses in CSPA
Exhibit BB support the SWRCB conclusions in the Draft Order that (1) the
proposed Project could have significant impacts on steelh6A and their habitat
in the Salinas River downstream of the Dam (pages 31 and 32) and (2) more
studies need to be done to determine the proposed Projects impacts on steelhead
and their habitat downstream of the Dam (page 32, paragraph 2, and page 33,
paragraph 4). However, this is where my support of the SWRCB Draft Order
ends relative to the direction the SWRCB is taking in the Draft Order to have
such fisheries/flow studies performed. Therefore I request that the SWRCB
modify the Draft Order to do the following.
First as I previously discussed under Legal Issues, the SWRCB needs to modify
the Draft Order to require the City to do these fisheries/flow studies now and
incorporate them and their results into a SEIR before the SWRCB proceeds any
further with the proposed Project.
Second. the SWRCB needs to modify the Order to require that the City do these
fisheries/flow studies under the close supervision and coordination of the
National Marine Fisheries Servive (NMFS) and Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game
(CDFG). How can the public or the SWRCB have any confidence that the City
will do these studies in a manner to find, protect, and restore steelhead in their
Salinas River Habitat below the Dam, when it has already done an EER
inappropriately biased to prove steelhead do not exist below the Dam in
numbers worth saving or in habitat worth protecting and improving for
steelhead recovery.
The irony with these City EIR conclusions is that it is the City's existing Salinas
Dam Project that has primarily so impacted steelhead in the Salinas River that
they are now a Federally threatened species in the Salinas River. And yet the
City through its biased IIR wants the public and trust agencies to buy into its
perspective that when a jurisdiction as the City primarily causes a species to
be listed as threatened it then is so rare as to not be worth protecting and
restoring to greater numbers.
Yet this is the City's position in their existing IIR. They therefore clearly
cannot be trusted to do, without pre-bias against Salinas River steelhead and
their habitat, the fisheries/flow studies the SWRCB requires them to
independently do in the Draft Order. The Draft Order needs to be modified to
require the City to do the fisheries/flow studies under the supervision of and
coordination with the NMFS and CDFG.
Third. It is totally inappropriate for the SWRCB in the Draft Order to state:
"The SWRCB finds that if steelhead are present in the reach between the
Salinas Dam and Highway 58 . . . . a geomorphologic study would be
necessary to identify what stream flows are required for maintenance
of the river channel downstream of the Salinas Dam."
Just about anyone involved with the proposed Project and familiar with this
stretch of the River knows that due to the existing Salinas Dam operation by
the City, flows are so inadequately provided to this stretch of River that
steelhead of any age class will only be found there under extra-ordinary
weather conditions that generate enough rain long enough downstream of the
Dam to overcome the City's existing unacceptable operation of the Dam. It is
well known that the building of Salinas Dam and the City's operation of it
relative to inadequate flow releases, including the period since the ISA was
promulgated in 1972, has caused steelhead to decline to the point of being
threatened with extinction from the Salinas River (CSPA Exhibit BB, page 21).
So I and anyone else including the SWRCB should expect at any given time it is
more likely that steelhead will not be found, rather than be found, in this
reach of the River. That does not mean that with adequate and appropriate
flow releases to the Salinas River from the Salinas Dam, steelhead will not
recover in the Salinas River to the point they could be considered no longer
threatened with extinction from the Salinas River. So the goal of the initial
fisheries study required by the Draft Order must not be to necessarily find
steelhead before the flow studies are required. But instead the goal of the
initial fisheries study under NMFS and CDFG supervision must be to determine
8
only if the 14.3 mile Canyon reach of the River immediately downstream of the
Dam is suitable recovery habitat for the steelhead.
Therefore the SWRCB needs to modify the Draft Order to state that the studies
need to be done on I for the purpose of determining if the 14.3 mile Canyon
stretch of the Salinas River immediately below the Dam is adequate habitat for
steelhead for survival, maintenance, and recovery, if adequate and
appropriate water flows are released to the Canyon stretch of Salinas River.
Four. for the SWRCB to comply with its Draft Order statement of
responsibility, relative to State waters and species reliant on it, to "in the
public interest and to protect public trust uses" and "in furtherance of the
SWRCB's continuing authority and duty of continuing supervision, under the
public trust doctrine, over all Salinas Reservoir diversions" (page 34, footnote
24) the SWRCB needs to modify the Draft Order to require the City to provide
interim flow releases adequate to keep steelhead and other fish and aquatic
species alive and in good condition downstream of the Dam. Not to do this would
be illogical.
Why would the SWRCB (1) on the one hand in the Draft Order require a study to
attempt to find steelhead in the 14.3 mile Canyon reach of the River below the
Dam, and (2) on the other hand in the Draft Order allow the City to continue
releasing flows, or no flows much of the time, nearly guaranteeing steelhead
will not be found there unless extraordinary rain-yielding weather conditions
happen to exist when the study is done? The only purpose I can understand for
the SWRCB allowing these 2 opposed conditions to exist in the Draft Order is to
help ensure the City does not find steelhead in the Canyon reach of the River.
I hope that this is not the SWRCB's purpose for not requiring interim Dam flow
releases to begin as soon as possible, which should be before this coming rainy
season to increase the chances the fisheries study will find steelhead.
CSPA attorney Ms. Lorraine Scarpace and/or CSPA fisheries biologist Mr. Felix
Smith are providing the SWRCB with Draft Order comment recommendations
for interim flow releases from Salinas Dam to keep steelhead and other fish
and aquatic species in good condition until the Draft Qrder required fisheries
and flow release studies are done and resultant long-term flow releases are put
into effect. These flow recommendations by CSPA are only meant to provide
interim flows until the studies generate the appropriate long-term flow
regime needed.
CSPA's fisheries specialists do not 100% agree on the regime of our
recommended flows and that is a healthy minor disagreement which
acknowledges that only the proper fisheries and flow studies, open to
interested parties for review and comment, can generate the necessary long-
term flow release regime for steelhead survival, maintenance, and recovery in
the Salinas River downstream of the Dam.
But what CSPA fisheries specialists do 100% agree on is that the interim flow
regime CSPA is recommending to you is vastly superior for steelhead and their
Salinas River habitat downstream of the Dam than the inadequate and often
non-existant flow releases the City has done in the past and present under the
very inadequate ISA!
9
Before I leave this section of my comments titled Issues Downstream of
Salinas Dam. I will recover my discussion in CSPA Exhibit BB on the
importance of the 14.3 mile Canyon stretch of the Salinas River immediately
below the Salinas Dam to the survival and recovery of steelhead in the Salinas
River (CSPA Exhibit BB, pages 6 & 7).
Other than enormous flow reductions to this Canyon stretch of River from the
construction of the Salinas Dam and its flow release operation ever since by
the City, this stretch of River has had little of the human development impacts
to it that almost all other downstream reaches of the River and its tributaries
have had since the Dam was built in 1942. This River stretch has relatively few
land owners living along it and it is otherwise remote with the Canyon
terraine being steep, rugged, and generally inaccessible to people and
development, unlike nearly all other areas of the Salinas River System.
The Dam cut off the headwaters of the Salinas where steelhead would have
historically migrated and spawned. And tributaries to the Salinas River below
the Dam are more and more rapidly being robbed of their flows by
developments diverting their surface flows and pumping their underflows.
Most unfortunate for steelhead that spawn in these downstream tributaries has
been the rapid expansion of Grapescape in San Luis Obispo County. Most of the
County's 20,000 acres of Grapescape have been planted in the last 10 years and
more 1000's of acres are being planted every year. Many of the historical
Salinas River steelhead spawning streams pass through the hill lands which
were once ranchlands and are now becoming more and more exclusively
water guzzling Grapescape. The impact of this Grapescape in historical
steelhead spawning habitat can only be reasonably guessed at— because no
"trust" agencies that I know of, including the SWRCB, have the trusted will to
analyze and study this water guzzling impact in steelhead spawning and
rearing habitat. But there can be little doubt that this hill land, water guzzling
Grapescape, where only recently ranches existed, is sucking steelhead
spawning streams dry!
There have been many other adverse development impacts on the water
supply of steelhead spawning Salinas River tributaries; Grapescape is just the
enormous most recent ongoing adverse impact. Old timers in the County who
are now dying off so the stories cannot be so well remembered and told,
themselves remember and tell of when many of the tributaries to the Salinas
River had plenty of water for steelhead to spawn in. Whereas now these old
timers tell how many of these streams have little or no water left in them for
steelhead spawning, hatching and rearing. And these old timers believe and
tell that it is due to all of the human water using developments along these
streams that they are going dry and many are thus no longer suitable for the
steelhead life cycle.
The bottom line for steelhead is that due to all these difficult to control adverse
development impacts along Salinas River tributaries, their spawning habitat
has greatly diminished. And it is likely more rapidly than ever continuing to
diminish, especially because of all the new Grapescape developing in the
historical hill land stream spawning habitat of steelhead.
10
I believe the best major hope for recovery of steelhead in the Salinas River is
the 14.3 mile Canyon stretch of the Salinas River where little of these stream
tributary types of water guzzling development activities can occur. Before the
Salinas Dam was built and much of the Salinas River's flows were diverted, the
Canyon stretch of the River would likely not have usually been suitable
spawning habitat. Winter flows in the Canyon stretch of the River would
typically have been too high and powerful for successful steelhead spawning
activity. However, before the Dam was built, high flows prohibitive to
steelhead spawning would not have been significant. Steelhead would have
just passed through the turbulant Canyon waters to their natural headwater
spawning areas upstream of the Canyon.
But with the building of the Dam two things happened. First, the steelhead lost
their headwater spawning areas for all time, or until the Salinas Dam is
ultimately removed. Second, because the Dam blocked off much of the
turbulant historical winter flows, the Canyon became a kind of defacto or even
surrogate steelhead spawning and rearing area. Where there were once
mostly turbulant rapids and raging pools in the Canyon in the winter, with the
Dam there were now alternating riffles, slicks, and pools much of the time in
the winter. Ideal habitat for not only spawning steelhead, but also hatching
and rearing juvenile steelhead.
But there has been a major problem and obstacle with the Canyon stretch of
the Salinas River becoming a significant spawning and rearing habitat for
steelhead. Due to the City's unacceptable operation of the Dam relative to
releases to the River, even in the winter months there often has not been
enough flow in the Canyon stretch of the River for steelhead in most years to
migrate to and spawn in. Then, even if enough flows existed in the winter for
steelhead spawning to occur, the City releases so little if any water to the River
during much of the spring hatching and the summer rearing seasons that
juvenile steelhead survival in the Canyon stretch of the River would typically
likely be very low.
That is why, if steelhead are to have the best chance for recovery in the
Salinas River, somewhat artificial though it may be due to construction of the
Dam, the Canyon stretch.of the Salinas River must from now on be treated as a
spawning and rearing habitat for steelhead. And of absolute importance for
this steelhead restoration to successfully happen, flow releases from the
Salinas Dam must from now on be managed to allow and enhance in this
Canyon reach of the River (1) adult steelhead migration to it and over any of
the 5 illicit private dams in the Canyon, (2) steelhead spawning in this reach,
(3) steelhead egg hatching in this reach, (4) juvenile steelhead rearing in this
reach, and (5) juvenile steelhead migration from this reach to the ocean.
For number "(4)" above to occur, adequate flows must be released in the
summer and fall low flow seasons for juvenile steelhead to be able to stay in
the protective riffle areas where they can successfully avoid large native and
non-native predatory fish. CSPA's recommended interim flow release regime
for the low flow season should adequately provide these juvenile steelhead
rearing protective flows from predatory fish.
For number "(5)" above to occur, CSPA's interim flow regime may not be
adequate in some years. One of the concerns of juvenile steelhead successfully
migrating to the ocean is having enough water to do so. In a year where
11
significant rains of about an inch or more start earlier than November 15,
when CSPA's recommended interim flows increase from the low flow season
recommended minimum, steelhead could migrate out of the bedrock underlain
Canyon reach where water does not rapidly disappear downward from the
stream bed. However, once these juvenile steelhead migrate out of the Canyon
area into the broad expanses of the sandy Salinas River bottom where water
can rapidly disappear into the sand, they could become stranded and die.
In this situation of rain occuring before November 15, juvenile steelhead
could begin migrating out of the Canyon on as little as about a 1" rain storm.
This is because the Canyon reach is steep, narrow, and mostly bedrock
underlying this soils, all of which can lead to fairly high flows flashing out of
the Canyon on a single rain storm of about 1". Last year Cal Poly University
fisheries professor emeritus Dr. Richard Krejsa told me he was doing some
fisheries investigative work along San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo
City when the early November rain of about 1" hit. He said this caused about a
15" rise and fall of the Creek over a few hour period.
San Luis Creek in the City is only a couple of miles downstream of its
headwaters in Cuesta Canyon which has the same steep, narrow, bedrock
underlain conditions of the Salinas River Canyon. I reveal my conversation
with fisheries biologist Dr. Krejsa hereto get us all thinking ahead of time that
if juvenile steelhead in some years migrate out of the Canyon reach on rain
induced flows occuring earlier than typically expected, a flow release regime
strategy needs to be worked out in advance to ensure these juvenile
outmigrants do not get stranded in the "Big Sandy" early in the rain season
only to dessicate and die there.
Such a situation could have happened last year if there were any outmigrant
juvenile steelhead because that significant 1" rain in early November was not
followed by any other significant rains until late in the winter, several
months later. Any juvenile steelhead migrating out in early November could
have been stranded and died in the downstream sandy Salinas River before
these later rains arrived providing more outmigrating flows.
In this not normal but still fairly often occuring rain/flow pattern, a Salinas
Dam flow release regime would need to be utilized that either (1) kept early
outmigrant juvenile steelhead alive in the downstream sandy areas of the
River until more rains arrived or (2) provided enough flows, but for a likely
shorter period, for juvenile outmigrants to swim downstream to the
confluence with the Nacimiento River where incoming Nacimiento River
flows would likely be adequate to keep juvenile steelhead alive until more rain
inducing outmigrating flows occurred.
Whatever the unique or not unique situations might be for using the Canyon
stretch of the Salinas River for Salinas River steelhead recovery, they need to
be recognized or discovered and dealt with.
For I know of no other way nor have no other hope for steelhead recovery in
the Salinas River than this reasonable plan involving the Canyon reach of the
Salinas River. But adequate and appropriate flows must be released from the
Salinas Dam for this recovery plan to work, and in the long past since the
Salinas Dam was built and currently under the "Live Stream Agreement" these
flows have not been released and are not being released from the Salinas Dam.
12
1Il. Issues Upstream of Salinas Dam:
Because I do not have a current copy of CEQA I cannot completely challenge
the RWQQB's conclusions in the Draft Order that regarding the adequacy of the
City's EIR:
"it is unnecessary for San Luis Obispo to identify every detail of its
proposed mitigation" and "Under the CEQA Guidelines, mitigation
measures may specify performance standards that would mitigate the
significant effects of a proposed project and that may be accomplished
in more than one specified way. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, section 15126.4,
subd. (a)(1)(B).)" (Draft Order, page 38, paragraph 2).
However, this must be a fairly new CEQA code section because it goes against
the CEQA case law that I am familiar with. I do not have time to find and quote
any of these CEQA cases, but they say that before an agency approves an EIR
the actual mitigations in it must be specified so that the public and other
reviewers can determine from the EIR that the mitigations are or are not
adequate, and can therefore comment on them, and file court proceedings
against the EIR certification/approval agency if the mitigations in the EIR are
inadequate. How would the public ever know if the actual mitigations were
adequate or not and therefore could comment on them and file legal action
against them if they were not adequate if the actual mitigations were not
required to be delineated in the EIR?
When the City certified their Final EIR in June 1998, the City did not know
where any mitigations would be located for the proposed Projects's significant
impacts upstream of the Dam on 73 acres of oak-pine woodlands (2500 oaks of
various species and 470 grey pines), 74 acres of wetland/riparian woodland
habitats (estimated by myself and other environmentalists [since the City
refused to count riparian tree losses for disclosure in the EIR] to be as many as
100,000 willows and other riparian trees of various sizes), about 16,000 feet
(about.3 linear miles) of Salinas Reservoir feeder stream channel impacts, and
chaparral habitat. And today, over 2 years later, as the Draft Order
demonstrates (pages 35 to 38), the City still does not know where any of the
mitigation sites will be for the many significant impacts the EIR admits the
proposed Project would cause to extensive stream and upland habitats upstream
of the Dam.
This nearly total lack of knowledge by the City where its mitigation sites will
be 2 years after certifying the FEIR is a far cry from the SWRCB saying in the
Draft Order "it is unnecessary. for San Luis Obispo to identify every detail of its
proposed mitigation" (page 38). The SWRCB has in its Draft Order
inappropriately tentatively approved the City's proposed Project not only
without knowing "every detail" of the City's EIR mitigations but without
knowing anv detail of the City's mitigation sites! If this is what CEQA allows
under the code section the SWRCB cited in the Draft Order, then relative to
meaningful mitigations and the publics rights to administratively and legally
challenge EIR "mitigations", then CEQA is virtually worthless for the use of
mitigations to reduce project adverse environmental impacts to a level of
insignificance.
13
The public would never have a clue what the EIR's final mitigations were
because they would be chosen, as in this case, years after the EIR was certified,
and in some cases, as in this case, on private land where the public would have
no right to visually review the mitigation sites compounding the fact the
public never had an opportunity to review the sites in the ER because none
were specified at the time of certification. The whole mitigation scenerio the
SWRCB sets forth in its Draft Order to justify approving the Project without
itself knowing where any of the mitigation sites will be is outlandish.
Actually, apparently unknown to the SWRCB as evident from its discussion of
Upstream Water Resources Impacts and Mitigation Measures in the
Draft Order (pages 35 - 38), on 3/7/00 the City Council did approve funding for
one totally inappropriate "mitigation" site 15 miles from the proposed Project's
Dam impact sites and arguably not-in-kind habitat. This site is 49 acres of very
steep hillside land adjacent to Cal Poly University. The 2/29/00 Council Agenda
Report and Council Agenda on the "mitigation" site states "The property has
considerable potential for oak woodland mitigation that will be needed in
relation to either the Salinas or Nacimiento projects" and the site will be
purchased with funds from the "Salinas Reservoir Mitigation Program" (pages
C7-1 and 4, attached).
The SWRCB should pay particular attention to the fact that, as the Draft Order
indicates (page 36, paragraph 2), the EIR Habitat Management Plan (HMP)
indicated that the City would.place its highest mitigation priority on acquiring
mitigations sites near the areas of Project impacts around the Salinas
Reservoir and upstream of it. But in the City's apparently first endeavor to
acquire a mitigation site for the Project, it failed miserably to do what it said it
would do in the HMP and bought an inappropriate "mitigation" site 15 miles
from the proposed Project impact areas.
This is not good initial evidence that the City is going to honor its HMP
promises and acquire mitigation sites close to the Project impact areas. The
concept of placing the highest priority on mitigating in the immediate area of
the Project adverse impacts is environmetally/ecologically well founded It is
based on plant and animal species that use the project site are the ones that are
impacted by the project. Therefore, for their best chances for survival they
need to be mitigated for in the area where they live. A mitigation site 15 miles
from the areas that will be adversely impacted by the proposed Salinas Dam
Project will not mitigate the impacts on species living in and around the
Salinas Reservoir.
Furthermore, although I may have overlooked it or forgotten it, I do not recall
the EIR indicating, as the Draft Order indicates (page 36, paragraph 2), that if
the City cannot find mitigation sites around and upstream of the Reservoir as
the HMP indicates it would, it will take the approximately.$10,000,000 it has
ear-marked for Project mitigation and give it to agencies and private parties
in a money give-away contest. If you want to make voters and constituents and
the public and agencies happy, then give them money. But this buying of the
public's silence does not in any way mitigate for the wild species that lose
their homes, habitat, health, and lives from the adverse
environmentaVecological impacts of a project.
Such "mitigation" money handouts to agencies and the public thus buying off
their citizenship trust responsibilities is destroying other species and their
14
rights to survival. The SWRCB as a trust agency should never forget the
inappropriateness of this disgraceful "mitigation" tactic,which is as of recent
destroying all the environmental and ecological premises upon which
mitigation has heretofore been rightfully founded and enacted on.
And one of the most disgraceful of all such agency and public buyoffs was the
Regional Water Quality Control Board earlier this year allowing PG&E to make
an upland public park out of land surrounding the Diablo Canyon Nuclear
Power Plant. But this is to absurdly mitigate for the billions of gallons of
cooling tower hot water dumped daily into a cold water marine environment
for the past 15 years. And in turn this has caused enormous deadly adverse
impacts to the marine environment invertebrates, fishes, mammals (dying in
large numbers from warm water red tied poisoning likely enhanced by the
huge plume of Diablo Canyon hot water outfall into the ocean), and plants.
Where is the justice, and there must be justice, for these long-term adversely
impacted marine species? Now with the buying off of the public's and
agencies' trust concerns with a popularist "mitigation" park, this deadly hot
water will go on being dumped .into the ocean without ever the marine species
getting just compensation survival mitigation, because the RWQCB says the
project has for all time now been "mitigated".
That is similar to what the SWRCB is condoning in the Draft Order when it
passively states "If San Luis Obispo is unable to acquire the mitigation sites and
obtain the required agency permits, it will consider alternative mitigation,
including providing of monetary compensation funds to public or private
agencies" (page 36).
The SWRCB has acted irresponsible by forcing the City to hurry to complete
and certify an obviously inadequate, EIR lacking any bonified mitigations. The
SWRCB has pushed for this sloppy hurry up job on the ER in order for the
SWRCB to rule on the City's request for an extension of its water rights Permit
5882. Was the SWRCB worried that someone would claim the City was not
showing due diligence in putting the entire water supply of Salinas Reservoir
to beneficial use? I do not know anyone who is arguing the City has not, as of
late (in the 1990's to now), shown due diligence. But I know everyone who is
making the claim the City has not shown due diligence, is instead making this
rightful claim based on the City failing to show due diligence over the fust 48
years (1942 to 1990) of the Project.
Therefore it is time the SWRCB act reponsibly as a reponsible agency under
CEQA and, based on the above discussion, modify the Draft Order to indicate the
SWRCB will not approve or disapprove the proposed Project until the City does
a SEIR indicating where the mitigation sites will be for the many significant
adverse environmental/ecological impacts upstream of the Salinas Dam.
M Summary.
In this written testimony on the SWRCB Draft Order WR 2000-_ of 8/24/00, I
have given the administrative, legal, environmental, and ecological reasons
.and justifications for requesting that the SWRCB:
( 1) for the reasons discussed in section "I. A." of these comments, modify its
Draft Order (a) to void the City's existing Permit 5882 for the City failing to
15
show due diligence over a 58-year period to put the Salinas Reservoir entire
water supply to beneficial use and (b) to, therefore, disapprove the proposed
Project, and (c) to take no further action on the Project, unless the City
chooses at a later date to apply for a new permit;
(2), after it concluded in the Draft Order that the City's IIR was inadequate to
determine if the Project would or would not have significant impacts on
steelhead and their Salinas River ecosystem downstream of the Dam, modify its
Draft Order to require that the City to do a Supplemental EIR on the Project for
all the reasons discussed in section "I:B." of these comments, including
fisheries and flow studies, and the need for these studies to be supervised and
coordinated with NMFS and CDFG, and to proceed no further with the Project
until the SIIR is done;
(3), for the reasons discussed in section H. (under the headings "Second" and
"Third") of these comments, modify its Draft Order (a) to require that the City
do the ordered fisheries and flow studies under the close supervision of and
coordination with the NMFS and CDFG, as the City has proven with its anti-
steelhead biased IIR it cannot be trusted to do these studies independently, and
(b) to require that the fisheries study not be done to find steelhead as a
prerequisite to doing the flow study, but instead, due to the City releasing
inadequate flows from the Dam for steelhead to likely exist in the 14.3 mile
long Canyon reach of the Salinas River most of the time, that the fisheries
study only be done to determine, as a prerequisite to doing the flow study, that
if adequate flows are released from the Dam, if the Canyon reach of the Salinas
River would be good habitat for the existence of steelhead there;
(4), for the reasons discussed in section II. (under the heading "Fourth") of
these comments, modify its Draft Order to provide the interim flow releases
from Salinas Dam recommended by CSPA in our comments being provided to
you on the Draft Order, to keep steelhead and other fish and aquatic species in
good condition as required by Code Section 5937, until the necessary fisheries
and flow studies are completed and the resultant derived flow regimes are
determined and put into use, and
(5) modify its Draft Order to require that the City to do a Supplemental IIR on
the Project for all the reasons discussed in sections 'Ill." and "III." of these
comments and to proceed no further with the Project until the SIIR is done,
I again want to thank the SWRCB for this opportunity to comment on the
SWRCB Draft Order WR 2000-_of 8/24/00.
Sincerely and on behalf of CSPA,
CC
NMFS
CDFG
• I
council
EA acEnda RepoRt FC7N
C I TY OF SAN L U1 S O B I S P o
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative OfficerQJ .
John Moss,Utilities Director#, n
Prepared By: Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager (),74,
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN STENNER CANYON
FROM UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve the purchase of a 49-acre property in Stenner Canyon from the Union Pacific
Railroad Company for$65,000,plus an allowance of$5,000 for closing costs.
2. To fund the purchase,bring forward and appropriate$70,000 from the Capital Improvement
Plan's Salinas Reservoir Mitigation program(previously scheduled for 2002-03).
DISCUSSION
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) property in Stenner Canyon consists of four parcels totaling
363 acres. One of the parcels, of 49 acres, lies within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt, and is
where the State Water pipeline and Salinas Reservoir pipeline emerge from the Cuesta tunnel.
The parcel is a valuable resource area, offering significant potential.for oak woodland, wetland,
and grassland mitigation. City staff has been very interested in this parcel for that mitigation
potential, and for its value in cooperating with Cal Poly on long-term research on mitigation.
Pursuant to Council direction, staff has had discussions regarding this property with the Railroad
Company since August 1998. We have reached agreement on all matters of the transaction, and
staff therefore recommends that the City Council approve the purchase.
FISCAL EWPACT
The cost of the land is $65,000, the appraised value of the property. There will also be minor
closing costs, not to exceed $5,000. The property has considerable potential for oak woodland
mitigation that will be needed in relation to either the Salinas or Nacimiento projects. Water
Enterprise funding for the Salinas Reservoir Mitigation Program has been scheduled in fiscal year
2002-03 of the Capital Improvement Plan. It is recommended that these funds be brought forward
and appropriated to support.this transaction. A portion of these funds will be returned to the Water
Fund, since the City has also received a grant of$10,000 from the Federal Government in support
of the acquisition. However, as is usual with Federal grants, the grant monies will be paid to the
City only after the transaction has been fully completed with UPRR.
Attachment: Letter agreement,map and draft deed from Union Pacific Railroad Company.
C7-1
Council Agenda TuE 1y, March 7, 2000
Action Update
C7. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY IN STENNER CANYON
FROM UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. (HAMPIAN/HAVLIK—601-06)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Approve the purchase of a 49-acre property in Stenner
Canyon from the Union Pacific Railroad Company for $65,000, plus an allowance of
$5,000 for closing costs. 2) Bring forward and appropriate $70,000 from the Capital
Improvement Plan's Salinas Reservoir Mitigation Program (previously scheduled for
2002-03) to fund the purchase.
ACTION. Approved(5:0).
C8. WIDE AREA NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS. (STATLER/MAA—704-06)
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Continue implementing the City"s fiber optic communication
network strategy and improving the wide area network by installing conduit on Chorro
Street between Palm Street and Lincoln Street. 2) Authorize the City Administrative
Officer to sign an agreement with Leo Tidwell Excavating Corporation in an estimated
amount of $19,500 for installing the conduit. 3) Appropriate $19,500 from the General
Fund for installing the conduit.
ACTION. Approved(5:0).
-ay.. - n w. "�71'i`T .J�? �. R?iw�.l:k it iiJ �IV�I;.I� 4I F:1t'I
a, I� 1 1p dYI { SIr11 r1u
APPOINTMENTS:. ' `-I ��•r11A lLi� IJ NYI M�1 Il IFI I II�IIIII II 1111 tI
Al. APPOINTMENTS TO THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
(EWAN/ROMERO—2 Minutes—303-02)
RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Tim Valentine to a four-year term to end on March 31,
2004, and reappoint Richard Lee to a three-year term to end on March 31, 2003.
ACTION. Approved(5:0).
A2. APPOINTMENTS TO THE MASS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
(EWAN/ROMERO—2 Minutes_303-09)
RECOMMENDATION: Reappoint Dr. Walter Rice as technical representative for one
year to expire on March 31, 2001, and appoint Sonja Wadman as the student
representative for a three-year term to expire on March 31, 2003.
ACTION. Approved(5:0).
4
RECEIVED
NOV -12000
From: Phil Ashley May 5. 1999 SLC CITY CLERK
Canvons And Streams Alliance (CASA)
1586 La Cita Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-544-9701 (home)
11 756-3505 (work)
To: Mr. Harry S. Schueller, Chief
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
P. O. Box 3000
Sacramento. CA 95813-3000
Subject: On behalf of CASA and representing California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance (CSPA) regarding fish and wildlife. following are my
comments, evidence. and arguments opposing the SWRCB (the Board) proposed
cancellation, in its March 34, 1999 letter (the Letter) to CSPA. of CSPA's
formai/official Environmental Protest (the Protest) regarding Water Rights
Permit 5883 (the Permit). Application 10216. of San Luis Obispo City (the City)
relative to the Citv's 'proposal to divert even greater flows than it has since
1943 from the Salinas River at Salinas Reservoir by the Proposed Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project (the Proposed Project).
Dear Mr. Scheuller:
I am a professional fish and wildlife biologist. I received my B.S. in biology
from Cal Poly University San Luis Obispo (Cal Polv) in 1969 and my NI.S. in
fisheries from Humboldt State University in 1974. [ worked for California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) in 1970 and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) from 1973-75 as a career fisheries biologist also doing
substantial wildlife biology for the Service. I have been a biology technician
in the Biology Department at Cal Poly since late 1975 where I have also taken
considerable course work in wildlife biology. As an environmental advocate
fish and wildlife biologist the past 34 years. I have worked and commented on
many development projects at city, county. state, and federal levels. I have
lived in SLO County for 38 years and the City for the last 10 years.
The Proposed Project relative to the City's Permit 5S83 is the Proposed Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project and its Final Environmental Impact Report For
The Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project (FEIR) certified illegally
(due to its lack of a Mitigation Plan for biological and other impacts) by the
City Council June 3, 1998. .
I have testified orally and in writing on every phase of this project including
public hearings on the Initial Draft Environmental Impact Report (IDEIR), in
1993-94, the Revised Draft EiR (RDEIR) in 1997• the Mitigation Advisory
Committee (MAC) in 1996, the FEIR in 1998, and now the Board's ill-advised
proposal to cancel CSPA's official Protest of the City's Permit 5383.
According to the FEIR the proposed project would raise the height of the
Reservoir about 19' and would increase the storage capacity from the existing
23.843 acre feet (AF) to 41.792 AF. an increase of about 75`,'c. This nearly
doubling of the Reservoir size and diversion of sisnificant and cumulatively
significant flows downstream (cumulatively significant in recognition of the
historical diversion to fill the existing Reservoir to 23.843 AF combined with
the proposed diversion of 17.949 AF to fill the expanded Reservoir to 41,792 AF)
would only supply the City with about 1650 AF per year (AFY).
My comments. evidence, and arguments opposing the SWRCB's proposed
cancellation of CSPA's official Protest of the City's Water Rights Permit 5882
follow.
1. The Board's Letter of March 24 to CSPA is very inaccurate in its
characterization that CSPA has not filed adequate environmental/ecological
information or evidence to accompany its Protest demonstrating and
documenting that the Proposed Project will cause adverse impacts downstream
and upstream of the Salinas Reservoir Dam '(the Dam). This characterization of
CSPA's Protest is inaccurate for two (2) significant reasons.
First, over the past year. including this 45 day period the Board has given CSPA
to provide such environmental documentation. I have received many
documents from CSPA that it has filed with the Board supporting its Protest
environmental damage/adverse impacts will result from the Proposed Project.
I will not list those documents here because the Board has them and should be
becoming familiar with them again. Apparently the Board had forgotten about
them, else it is unlikely its letter of 3/24 would have been written proposing
the cancellation of CSPA's official Protest.
And secondly. the Board's letter is inaccurate and cause for great concern that
a natural resource trust agency such as the SWRCA without adequate review of
the entire EIR administrative record, which took place over nearly a 5 year
period (1993-98). took the perspective of the City that the Proposed Project will
not cause significant and cumulatively significant impacts to the
environment. The Board took this position in its Letter mainly because it
assumed that the City's act of certifying the FEIR demonstrated the Proposed
Project is environmentally sound.
However, jurisdictions as Cities vote all the time to certify EIRs that say with
strong pro-project bias that the substantial evidence in the EIR demonstrates
that significant and cumulatively significant adverse impacts will not occur
because they have been mitigated to less than significant or cumulatively
significant. Cities hire consultants to prepare EIRs and come to such
conclusions-- else they will not be rehired by ANY developer entity. public or
private, that is required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to
do an EIR. It is a disappointing fact that consultants are more concerned about
being rehired than primarily protecting the environment under CEQA.
Twenty-five years of promulgating CEQA in this State bears this out, and
written history will eventually clearly record this sad environmental truth
that is in immediate and serious need of societal. legal. and environmental
correction!
It is not surprising that even without a Mitigation Plan with specific
mitigations. which has been proven illegal time and wain in California
courts, the Cite certified the FEIR. They are under the illusion of desperation to
acquire new water sources to continue wasting water_ as thev have in the pasts
rather than learning bonified modern water conservation technology. .The
City sees water acquisition at almost any and all environmental and economic
cost as their duty to their citizens, rather than attempting to educate citizens to
change their behavior to be more water conservation oriented.
But what is surprising is that the Board that has an entirely different mandate
than the City, took the City's perspective without question. Possibly more than
any other agency in the State, the SWRCB has a public trust responsibility to
ensure that the water's of the State are not used in a way that will harm those
waters or the natural resources and people of the State reliant on them.
Contrary to the City's EIR conclusion and the Board's erroneous conclusion in
its Letter, there are scores of comment letters on the IDEIR. RDEIR. and FEIR,
and scores more recorded public oral testimonials at hearings on the EIR and
Proposed Project that strongly demonstrate that the project will have
significant and cumulatively significant as of yet unmitigated impacts on the
environment.
As a citizen of this State. I ask that the SWRCB cease acting as an agent for the
City, and instead act as the public trust agency we the public honor it as and
seriously review these pri%ate, public, and aeencv comments that are ALL in
the administrative record on this project. If the Board does this. I feel
confident it will come to a different conclusion than it did in its Letter
proposing to cancel CSPA's Environmental Protest on the inaccurate basis of
the lack of evidence regarding environmental harm that would be caused by
the Proposed Project.
It is also important that the Board know that at the City's public hearing on its
various proposed water projects on 3/33/99-- one day before SWRCB sent its
Letter to CSPA proposing to cancel CSPA's Protest-- the City told the -1,1404- public
there would be an upcoming Board hearing, possibly this summer, on CSPA's
official Protest.
This City hearing public information contradicts so dramatically with what the
Board's Letter to CSPA says and attempts to do that I request that the City Staff
Report, written public comments, and the entire City Clerk recorded 3/33/99
City public hearing for the City's proposed water projects he made a part of the
SWRCB Administrative Record for its review of all information and evidence
pertinent to its proposal to cancel CSPA's Protest. When the Board does this, it
will find many public written and oral comments on many water conservation
technologies the City inexplicably refuses to consider, which if it did, could
make the City's Proposed Project to divert an additional 17,949 AFY of critical
Salinas River flows for a mere 1,650 AFY supply yield a moot issue.
Given this background. please hold to what the City told the public 3/33/99.
and proceed with your plans all along to hold a Board hearing on CSPA's
Protest. To assist your review of the many comment letters and oral
testimonials on the Proposed Project and its EIR demonstrating and
documenting that the Proposed Project would cause significant inadequately
mitigated impacts on the environment. I have provided you with copies of all
my Proposed Project EIR comment letters, although you already have access to
them in the Proposed Project EIR Administrative Record. Niv comment letters
in themselves document many aquatic and terrestrial Proposed Project impacts
downstream and up!:rrcam of the Dam that would occur and have yet to be
adequately addressed and mitigated, which will help you to come to the
decision not to cancel CSPA's Protest.
My comment letters herein attached as "Exhibit I" are (1) my 6/2/98 comment
letter and attachments including color photographs on the FEIR. (2) my
8/13/97, 7/24/97 and attached photos, and 7/15/97 comment letters on the
RDEIR, and (3) my 1/2/94 comment letter on the IDEIR. My 7/15/97 comment
letter had 3 other attached comment letters from the City's Environmental
Quality Task Force (EQTF), which I was a member of. I have not attached them
here due to lack of adequate time to copy and attach them. But they and several
other documents are listed as Comment Items 21B through 21J on page J-3 of
Appendix J of the FEIR. And my 7/15/97 comment letter that they were
originally attached to is listed on the same page as Comment Item 21A. All of
these Comment Items are in Appendix J, and I request that you review them all
in making your decision not to cancel CSPA's Protest.
Finally, since your Letter proposing to cancel . CSPA's Protest refers to the City's
Proposed Project EIR as the main documentation for cancelling the Protest, I
now ask that you include the ENTIRE Administrative Record of all the Proposed
Project EIR related hearings and EIR ( IDEIR. RDEIR. &: FEIR) documents as part
of vour Administrative Record in the matter of your proposal to cancel CSPA's
Protest.
2. The Proposed Project will have 2 major types of significant and cumulatively
significant adverse impacts. It will have these impacts (1) downstream of the
Dam on the Salinas River (the River) and (2) upstream of the Dam on the River
and around the Reservoir shoreline. I will address major, significant. and
cumulatively significant impacts downstream of the Dam in this comment
section.
My primary concern as a fish and wildlife biologist relative to the downstream
adverse impacts of this project are in the approximately 14 mile long Salinas
River Canyon (the Canyon) immediately downstream of the Dam. This is the
area I believe the "Live Stream Agreement" (the Agreement) discussed in
Appendix F has the least benefit for. One of many problems with the
inadequate FEIR is that in appendix F it only gives the original sere sketchy
wording of the Agreement. which is described in number "7." (new permit
condition 8 for the City's Water Rights Permit 5882).
The Agreement basically merely says that all downstream vested water rights
will be presumed met by the Board if a visible flow exists, or if not. all water
entering the Reservoir is to be released. I have heard word of mouth that there
are various checkpoints on the River where a visible flow is looked for.
However, the EIR failed to say where these checkpoints are or if they exist at
all.
In fact. the wav the Agreement reads, it could be interpreted that as long as a
visible flow can be seen anywhere between the Dam and the River's
confluence with Nacimiento River about 30 miles downstream. the Agreement
is met. The public and everyone else involved have a right to know exactly
what the Agreement is. This is extremely important for everyone's
understanding of how the FEIR can conclude that there will he no sisnificant
downstream impacts to the River and its reliant aquatic and terrestrial species
because the Proposed Project does not alter the Agreement. But no more than
the FEIR tells us about the Agreement, it must be assumed that if a visible flow
is seen somewhere in the above described River stretch. the Agreement is
being met. and that does not support a conclusion the Live Stream Agreement
prevents adverse impacts to the River Downstream of the Dam-- with or
without the Proposed Project.
One problem is that the further downstream one goes on the River in this
stretch. the more likely they are to see a visible flow as more and more streams
enter the River from a larger and larger watershed. This makes the likelyhood
that a visible flow will be seen further downstream in the Atascadero and Paso
Robles cities stretch of the River very likely. On the other hand. in the 14 mile
Canyon just below the dam where only 3 streams enter the River and .the
watershed is only a few square miles. a visible Flow may not exist at all.
And as far as vested downstream water rights referred to in the Agreement are
concerned. unfortunately little of the concern to date has been in the Canyon
stretch of the River. Almost all of the concern so far has been along the valley
stretch of the River where private property owners abound and where the
mentioned cities and towns of Templetown and Santa Margarita exist. Almost
all of these entities draw some portion of their water from River basin wells
and pumps addressed by the Agreement. Even CDFG does not seem to be very
interested in the 14 mile Canyon stretch of the River. This is demonstrated by
the fact that their comment letters on the EIR do not address adverse impacts
that would occur to the River ecosystem downstream of the Dam due to the
diversion of even more water from the River than the City has historically
diverted!
Soy many people and water entities in towns and rural areas in the valleys
downstream of the Canyon are watching to be sure visible flow exists in the
River along these fairly heavily populated areas. But who is watching to
ensure a visible flow exists throughout the Canyon. or that a flow exists at all
in the Canyon. even though visible flow exists further downstream in the
populated valley areas'?
My concern about this was greatly elevated on April 23 of this year when I was
invited onto .\Ir. Otto Schmidt's Canyon property along the River several miles
downstream of the Dam. There, was virtually no flowing water in the River in
the Canyon! Photographs I and 2 of my attached "Exhibit 2" (Photographs)
shows this situation at the private instream earthen dam immediately
upstream of Mr. Schmidt's property. I estimated there was less than I cubic
feet per second (cfs) flow coming over the spillway to the private dam. The
lack of flow was not due to the private dam holding back water. since the
reservoir behind the dam was at maximum capacity and the spillway was
releasing all of what little water was flowing in the River. Also. I checked
various riffles on Mr. Schmidt's property and they all were flowing at less
than I cfs.
Last year when I was at this site over a month later in the year. May 30. 1998.
there was significantly more flow in the River coming over this same
spillway. as shown by photographs I and 2 in my attached 6/3/98 FEIR
comment letter. I did not estimate the flow last year. but now looking at the
photograph. I estimate that it was likely around 10 cfs or more.
I recognize last year was an EI Nino year with late and above average rainfall,
but this year had enough late .rain to bring it up to a nearly average rain year
(around 30"). Furthermore, one week earlier on April 17 of this year. I was on
the River just upstream of where it enters the Salinas Reservoir and the flow
entering the Reservoir was substantial. I did not estimate it at the time, but my
recollection of the flow conditions was it was likely somewhere around 15cfs.
So I have grave concerns about flows in the Canyon relative to the FEIR saying
there would be no significant impact below the Dam from the. Proposed Project
due to the Live Stream Agreement not being changed by the Proposed Project.
Whereas in reality the "Live Stream Agreement" seems to be killing the flows
in the Canyon. as on 4/33/99.
So, as previously discussed herein, there may be visible flows down in the
valley where a very large watershed and many steams feed into the River. But
up in the Canyon. where the Dam blocks the Canyon off from about 130 square
miles of upstream watershed and all of its flows that the Canyon would
otherwise benefit from, there is a very small. narrow watershed obviously
incapable of supplying the River with anything more than a trickle or less
during a nearly average rain year, as I observed on 4/33/99 and as can be seen
in Photo I.
I recognize that during those more rare drought periods when no flow is seen
downstream, the second part of the Agreement comes into play requiring then
that all of the River flow coming into the Reservoir must be released from it.
And under these less common conditions, the River stretch in the Canyon
would benefit first from any releases, since it is closer to the Dam than the
downstream urbanized valley areas are. But this is somewhat of a paper tiger,
since under these types of drought conditions, no River flow may be entering
the Reservoir either-- so therefore none has to be released!
From this evidence. either during drought or wet periods. I conclude that it is
very likely the Live Stream Agreement is inadequate to supply the 14 mile
Canyon stretch %with enough flows to maintain an adequate aquatic ecosystem
including threatened steelhead.
The question that I now ask and that must be answered is where are the
instream flow studies done by the City and/or CDFG proving and justifying that
the Live Stream agreement is based on sound scientific study and evidence'?
When was a standard Instream Flow Incremental Method study done by the
City or CDFG (1 ) in the Canyon and (3) elsewhere on the River demonstrating
that the Live Stream Agreement actually protects aquatic species and their
Salinas River and riparian habitat, as native fish and amphibians including
Federally threatened steelhead and red-legged frogs, etc.'?
And when were such studies done to prove that the Agreement adequately
protects the River habitat for many terrestrial species reliant on the River
system and its riparian zone. including federally threatened willow
flycatchers, least Bell's vireos, and arroyo southwestern toads, whose ranges
historically and may still include the Salinas River downstream and upstream
of the Dam'? .and whose recovery habitats certainly should include the Salinas
River downstream and upstream of the Dam.
Or when vas an even simpler flow study methodology as the "Montana Method"
(attached as "Exhibit ?") done on the Salinas River, as it has been done for
other rivers with dams. to help demonstrate that the Agreement is
scientifically aquatically adequate to maintain native aquatic species in good
condition'.)
Until such fisheries instream flow studies are done on the River in the Canyon
and downstream of it. the agreement, which may have just been an
unscientific political deal. could be far more environmentally damaging than
beneficial. If the Agreement is simply based on the conclusion some water in
the River is better than no water, but it is not known whether or not the
Agreement "flows" .are adequate to sustain aquatic and terrestrial species
reliant on the flows, then it is a very damaging Agreement. Bad "mitigation"
perpetuated without proof or evidence as to its effectiveness for
accomplishing what it is intended is compoundingly bad. Such ineffective but
unquestioned and untested mitigations tend to get used again and again
elsewhere, with similar long term adverse environmental results occurrg
there also.
This Live Stream Agreement is especially environmentally suspect because the
City, its consultants, and the EIR all rest their conclusions the Proposed Project
will not have a significant adverse environmental impact downstream of the
Dam needing flow mitigations because the Live Stream Agreement is . not being
changed by the Proposed Project. But if the existing Agreement is not adequate
for the River ecosystem. then it can only be concluded that diverting even
more flows from the River by the Proposed Project will compound the
inadequacy of the Agreement.
The Board needs to require that the City and/or CDFG either provide the
scientific evidence of these already done stream flow studies proving the
Agreement is adequate to protect the River ecosystem including threatened
species as steelhead and red-legged frogs and their recovery habitat. or the
Board needs to require that these studies be done. And because a Live Stream
Agreement is being perpetuated on the possible myth that it is adequate when
in reality it may not be. the Board needs to require such flow study evidence
before it takes any further action on the City's Water Rights Permit 5882.
Furthermore these flow studies are necessary because Fish and Game code 5937
requires that adequate flows be maintained in streams to keep all fish and
their habitat ix" good condition. It is unknown but unlikely that the Live
Stream Agreement is in compliance with this code section. Flow studies must be
done to ensure this code section is being complied with. or that it will soon be
complied with if it currently is not being complied with.
Furthermore, since it is known and uncontested that the Citv's existing and
historical diversions of Salinas River flows have significantly adversely
impacted native fishes including threatened steelhead (see appendix L. section
Appendix L-2. page L-1-+), the Board shou;d take the position that the City has
a responsibility to mitigate past impacts to the River. The Board needs to
ensure that the City acknowledges that diverting even more water from the
River would have cumulatively significant adverse impacts on the River when
combined with its existing and historical diversions that are cumulatively in
need of flow mitigations. The Board then needs to ensure that the City
adequately mitigates these impacts through doing* instrcam flow studies and
O .
using appropriate and adequate mitigations derived from such instream flow
studies.
It is irresponsible that the City has attempted historically with its original
Salinas Reservoir River diversion project and now again attempts with its
Proposed Project to deny major, significant, and cumulatively significant
adverse impacts on the downstream River ecosystem, including steelhead and
their habitat, that need more and adequate flow mitigations. They have acted
in this unacceptable manner despite the fact that CEQA requires a cumulative
projects impacts analysis, including past, present, and proposed future
projects, that in turn requires appropriate mitigations.
With this CEQA background relative to the City's flow diversion adverse impacts
on the Salinas River including on steelhead and their habitat, the Board needs
to require these instream flow studies of the City directed at the application of
appropriate flow mitigations for steelhead, other aquatic and terrestrial
species, and their River/riparian habitat.
And it is because the City is so tenuously clinging to the conclusion there will
be no significant or cumulatively significant adverse impacts downstream of
the Dam resulting from the Proposed-Project that need new flow mitigations.
the Board needs to vigorously retain CSPA's Protest.
In fact, the Board has strong support from the FEIR itself that the Proposed
Project will cause cumulatively significant downstream impacts. Page 5-2
states "the cumulative effects of the project when considered together with the
overall surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals by all
downstream users could be considered a significant environmental impact".
Furthermore. relative to downstream impacts. page 3.4-20 states "the greatest
impacts are expected to occur during periods of reservoir refilling following
extended drought periods". The City is willing to admit to such impacts, but
then hedges on any mitigations on several bogus grounds.
On page 5-2 it indicates it is willing to participate in a basin-wide water
management plan. A willingness to participate in a basin-wide water
management plan is not flow mitigation for the City's past. present. and
Proposed Project flow diversions from the River. It also argues Proposed
Project flow reductions would occur during wet winter months when there
would be adequate flow in the River despite what the City diverts now and
would additionally divert with the Proposed Project.
This may be true many miles downstream where there is a large watershed and
many streams draining into the River to greayty dilute the environmental
effects of the City's water diversions. But it is not true in the 14-mile Canyon
where there is only a very narrow, steep, small watershed where winter flows
flash in quickly and flush out and disappear just as quickly-- in a matter of
hours, or a few days at most. In fact, other than during uncommon Dam spill
years (only once every 3 years on average over the past 50 years-- see
Appendix K-E and Appendix L-2 of the FEIR) the City has done no hydrology in
the EIR to prove there will be adequate, sustained flows in the Canyon when it
is diverting all of the flows with its Proposed Project.
And finally, the City defaults to its main argument, the Proposed Project will
not cause adverse impacts in need of flow mitigations because it is not altering
the Live Stream Agreement, which I have argued here is environmentally
suspect and potentially in the long term even damaging to the River
ecosystem.
However, because the FEIR admits to cumulatively significant downstream
adverse impacts from the Proposed Project and then weasel words around
having to do any flow mitigations to offset the impacts, the Board has strong
grounds to require the necessary instream flow studies and associated flow
mitigations ensuing from such studies.
Regarding the downstream impacts of the Proposed Project, there are several
other points I will now cover. This is necessary because the City with its
Proposed Project EIR has went to considerable effort to demonstrate that the
Salinas River including the River stretch in the Canyon is not steelhead
habitat worthy of acknowledging for mitigation, restoration, and recovery for
steelhead. However, if one carefully reads the 2 parts to Appendix L of the
FEIR, entirely different conclusions can be arrived at than the River is not
good steelhead habitat and the Proposed Project would do nothing to worsen
that condition to threatened steelhead that in turn would require Proposed
Project flow mitigations.
The first part of Appendix L is Appendix L-1, which is titled "Additional
Information on the Occurrence of Steelhead .along the Salinas River Below the
Dam". When one reads the 6-page Appendix L-1, a logical conclusion that can
be reached after this fairly brief historical review of steelhead in the Salinas
River dating from the early 1900's to the present, is that the Salinas was once
very good steelhead habitat destroyed in large part by the building of the
Salinas Dam in 1942.
Snyder (1913) reported that "large numbers" of steelhead entered the Salinas
River. By 1965 CDFG estimated the steelhead spawning runs to be a little more
than 500 fish. Though there is no numbers given by Snyder in 1913, it can be
assumed that his reference to large numbers of steelhead entering the River.
meant numbers much larger than 500 spawning steelhead. By 1991 Nehlsen et.
al. reported the Salinas River steelhead was at moderate risk of extinction.
However, in appendix L-1 no information was given on the estimated numbers
of spawning steelhead in the River in 1991 when Nehlsen made his extinction
risk analysis. So it is not known if steelhead numbers are above or below the
19$0's estimate of 500 fish.
6
Three conclusions can be made from this information. First. the River was
once very good steelhead habitat, second, construction of the Dam in 1942
dramatically adversely impacted the steelhead habitat to reduce steelhead runs
to 500 fish by the 1910's, and third, whether Salinas River steelhead spawning
numbers are now above or below 500 fish, as of 1991, the fish is at risk of
extinction.
Contrary to what the City irresponsibly concludes in the EIR. I can only come
to one conclusion from this information-- it is time to restore flows to Salinas
River below the dam to not only remove the risk of extinction to steelhead but
to also help the steelhead recover to numbers well above 500 fish per year.
These flows need to be adequate enough to ensure in most years the Salinas
- River can be migrated up by spawning steelhead from the ocean to the Dam. At
l0
the Dam spawning steelhead could be trucked to their historical headwaters
above the Dam. or a fish ladder could be built around the Dam.
As for Appendix L-1 presenting some information derived from minimal City
consultant site trips in 1997 that some of the Canyon stretch of River may not
be adequate steelhead spawning and rearing habitat. I presented written and
photographic evidence in my 7/24/97 comment letter on the RDEIR and my
6/2/98 comment letter on the FEIR contradicting this EIR conclusion. I will not
cover all of that information again, but please read my 2 comment letters and
look at their supporting photograph evidence.
I will, however. briefly cover the issues that the EIR/Appendix L-I concluded
River water temperature and man-made barriers are limiting factors in the
Canyon precluding this stretch of River from being high-quality steelhead
spawning and rearing habitat. I provided River temperature information in
my 7/24/97 and 6/2/98 comment letters demonstrating water temperatures are
not a problem to spawning and rearing juvenile steelhead in the Canyon
stretch of the River.
I also provided written and photographic evidence in my 6/2/98 comment
letter that the upper private dam in the Canyon would not be a migration
barrier to either upstream spawning steelhead or downstream migrant
juvenile steelhead. However. I did not have site visit or photographic evidence
6/2/98 on the lower private dam. On 4/10/99 I obtained this evidence and have
concluded that except under very low flow conditions of only a few cubic feet
per second, it would not be a barrier to upstream migrating spawning
steelhead.
This private dam and its spillway can be seen in photographs 3 and 4 of
"Exhibit 2". The spillway has a jump about 6 feet high, which with adequate
Flows is well within adult steelhead leaping ability. But I do not believe they
could have leaped over the spillway with the flows of 4/10/99 shown in the
photographs. I estimate that there was only about 5 cfs flow in the spillway
4/10/99, and I also estimate it would likely take about twice that amount of flow
in the spillway before steelhead could leap over the spillway.
In fact there is adequate evidence that spawning steelhead are getting over
this lower barrier in the Canyon. Appendix L=l discusses the 24" steelhead that
was caught in the pool just below the upper private dam in the Canyon, so
obviously it jumped over the lower dam spillway. I have had a recent
discussion with Chuck Marshall of CDFG who saw this frozen steelhead and Mr.
Marshall verified to me it was a steelhead and not a hatchery fish that could
have washed over the Salinas Reservoir Dam. Also Mr. Schmidt said that when
CDFG. City employees. and others saw this large steelhead in 1997, tissue
samples were taken for genetical testing.
The Board needs to now request the results of these genetical tests on this
steelhead because at the City's FEIR certification hearing 6/2/98, the City's
Utility Department Director attempted to discredit what the property owner
said regarding the steelhead was caught on his property. The Utility
Department Director alleged that the steelhead could have been caught
somewhere else and then presented as a steelhead caught where it was said to
have been caueht. This accusation that the property owner was not telling the
truth could be dispelled by the results of the genetical testing that was going to
be done on this steelhead's tissue samples. I request that the Board follow up on
this issue.
Furthermore, Mr. Otto Schmidt, who owns the River property just below the
upper private dam in the Canyon, is sending you in this 45 day period (for
supplying evidence supporting not cancelling CSPA's Protest). a photograph
of an approximately 20" steelhead he caught spring of 1997 in the River on his
property. He is also supplying you with written evidence that he caught
juvenile salmonids at about the same time he caught the large one in the
photograph. He said these were fairly small. (6" or so), sleek. well conditioned,
silvery fish, with all their fins intact, in contrast to the larger. fin-clipped,
stocked trout he occassionally catches that wash over the Salinas Dam from
time to time. Based on this discussion with Mr. Otto, I too conclude the smaller
salmonids he has caught were juvenile steelhead.
He also told me that in the 70's and 80's there were fairly large runs of
upstream migrant spawning pacific lampreys in the River. He has not seen
lamprey in the River since the 80's. However. I have talked to several people
recently who have seen or heard others describe seeing lamprey in the River
near Atascadero in the past 5 years.
Except for the lamprey information, which was presented here for recent
native lamprey documentation in the River, all of this information leads to a
logical conclusion the stretch of River in the Canyon is steelhead habitat.
However, the key to the question how good of steelhead habitat it is or could be.
rests with the City's willingness or lack of willingness to provide adequate
flows i-n the Canyon below the Dam during the winter steelhead migration
season and the summer juvenile steelhead rearing season.
Adequate flows are necessary so the 2 private dam spillways can be negotiated
by upstream spawning steelhead and so gravels in the ample gravel spawning
and rearing beds of riffles and runs (ample as attested to in Appendix L-2 and
my EIR comment letter of 7/24/97) will be adequately cleaned. This cleaning of
gravels by adequate flows is critical for steelhead so (1) the steelhead eggs will
not be suffocated by silt and (2) the gravel bottom will provide good clean
bottom substrate for a diversity of aquatic insects and other aquatic
invertebrates, which the juvenile steelhead will feed on while rearing in
these gravel bed areas.
However, despite what the City says in its Proposed Project EIR. for the past 50
years adequate natural flows do not exist in the River below the Dam in the 14
mile long Canyon and the City has not provided adequate winter and summer
flows from the Dam outlet for steelhead, and often it has provided no flows for
steelhead. It is time it provides these flows voluntarily or is forced to do so by
the .Board and other State and Federal trust agencies.
This leads into my discussion of the second part of Appendix L. which is
Appendix L-2 titled "Additional Information on Biological Consequences of
reduced spills". This Appendix only deals with a hydrological model analysis of
winter flows in the river during uncommon spill years. which has been 17
Dam spill years out of the total 50 years the City has historically diverted water
from the River. This indicates that on average there is only Dam spills once
every three years. So the study did not hydrologically analyse flows in the _
Canyon for 33 of the 50 years. 66% of the years.
!Z
But even for the spill years Appendix L-2 did analyse, it came to an untenable
conclusion that the Proposed Project will not adversely impact the River's
ability to scour the River bed in the Canyon. This scouring is important to (1)
sustain the long term dynamic cycle of riparian vegetation regeneration, (2)
create fish and other aquatic species habitat (as pools, riffles, cut banks. etc.),
and (3) cleanse gravel beds and sand bars for spawning fish, their hatching
eggs, and aquatic bottom invertebrates which form the base of the aquatic food
web of life.
This conclusion in Appendix L-2 is untenable because what the model predicts
is not what is actually happening to the River most of the time due to the City's
past and present diversions, which would only be worsened by the Proposed
Project. It could be true that in these spill years, which only happen 33% of all
years. these scouring functions of. the River in the Canyon are attained. But
even for these years, no one knows if the model is correctly predicting these
scour functions of the River, because no one is looking at the River itself
during these spill years to see if these scouring functions are actually
occuring. Actual field studies need to be done to prove if the model is accurate
or not.
Furthermore, in those 66% of the years when the City is diverting all the
upstream watershed Flows, it is doing major and significant hydrologic damage
to the River, including eliminating critical scour function. The City argues in
the EIR it is diverting these flows mostly in the winter when there will be
adequate scouring flows in the River in the Canyon stretch. However. despite
this EIR argument, other than during infrequent spill year modeling, the City
has persistently refused to do hydrologic flow analysis in the Canyon to prove
there will be adequate flows for scouring, spawning, egg hatching, rearing,
bottom invertebrate biodiversity, etc.
And despite the City's EIR argument that the Proposed Project will not have
significant adverse flow impacts, due to mostly diverting during wet winter
months and the Live Stream Agreement, currently adverse flow impacts are
occuring and will only be worsened by the Proposed Project.
For example, when I was on Mr. Schmidt's River property in the Canyon on
:/23/99, clean gravel beds I had seen and photographed in 1998 (see Photo 5 of
my 6/2/98 FEIR comment letters showing clear flows and clean gravel
interspersed with rocks in a run at the tail of a long riffle just out of view
upstream) were covered with silt. This was due to the lack of flows to scour the
gravel beds clean. Apparently what is happening at least some of the time
during the 66% of the years there are no Dam spills, is contrary to what the
EIR argues, there are not enough flows generated in the small, narrow Canyon
watershed to provide sustained flows high and fast enough to adequately clean
the gravel beds. It may be true that during short periods of hours or days at
most. silt transporting higher flows occur. But apparently these silt
transporting flows stop just as fast as they start and the silt they were
transporting is then deposited in place on gravel beds and sand bars, with
significant adverse impacts on the River ecosystem including steelhead.
It has been my experience with coastal streams as the Salinas River. that
although sudden high flows, that are also over with rather suddenly, may
13.
provide the scouring functions for regenerating riparian vegetation and
creating fish and other aquatic species pool, riffle. bank, etc.. habitat, such
temporary flows do not properly scour the gravel and sand beds clean of silt.
This takes longer more sustained flows that need not be of the high magnitude
of the flows needed for the other stream scouring functions.
Based on what I saw 4/23/99 on Mr. Schmidt's property, neither of the City's
EIR promoted arguments that (1) winter flows below the Dam will provide
enough scouring to offset City diversions from the River and (2) the Live
Stream Agreement will maintain the downstream River in adequate ecological
condition, are working to prevent significant adverse impacts to the River.
Flows generated in just the small watershed of the Canyon are not adequately
scouring gravel and sand bars clean and the Live Stream Agreement is not
providing adequate, if any, flows to the Canyon stretch of the River.
And this damage to the River in the Canyon due to lack of flows is occurring
even when substantial flows are in the River above Salinas R rvoj r
, as was the
case on 4/17/99. My belief is that although there has been no significant rain
for a month now. the flow in the Salinas River above the Reservoir is still
fairly substantial-- scouring the bottom clean and supporting cold water fish
and other aquatic life upstream of the Reservoir. unlike what is happening
downstream of the Reservoir. I will soon verify this belief with another site
visit upstream of the Reservoir.
So the Board needs to not be mislead by the EIR claims winter flows below the
dam and the Live Stream Agreement are adequate to maintain the ecological
health of the River ecosystem, when my experience indicates neither are
adequate. Instream fisheries flow studies in the River below the Dam,
especially in the Canyon, are necessary without further delay. As part of these
instream flow studies, the Board also needs to require that the City provide it
and the public and all other concerned parties as CSPA. CASA. and the Santa
Barbara Environmental Defense Center (EDC). with all flow release data from
the Salinas Dam in cubic feet per second (not AFY which has little application
to stream surface flow studies and can be very misleading information).
This flow release data needs to be in the smallest increments of time that the
City has. as on a daily or hourly basis. And this flow release information in cfs
needs to go back as far as the City has records for including as far back as the
inception of the Live Stream Agreement and preferably all the way back to the
City's involvement with the first operation of the Dam in the early 1940's. And
this flow release information needs to make it clear what flows in cfs are (1)
from spills. ('_) from the Dam outlet release valves, and (3) for meeting the
Live Stream Agreement.
Finally, on the issue of the Proposed Project's impacts in the Canyon
downstream of the Dam, the City has used its EIR hydrologic data to very
questionably demonstrate lower flow reductions than would actually occur. I
have addressed this in my previous EIR comment letters, which I have
requested that you read, but I will summarize this problem here. Several places
in the EIR it is indicated flows just below the Dam will be decreased about 6.79c
by the Proposed Project (Table 3.4-13). However, on page ES-6 of the EIR it is
indicated that this Proposed Project flow reduction at the downstream base of
the Dam is 13.717c (see page 8 of my 6/2/98 comment letter for the simple —
calculation vieldine 13.75'0).
And in the Bob Roos "Salinas Reservoir Expansion Downstream Flow Impacts"
report (attached here as "Exhibit 4") filed in local libraries, different methods
of calculating the Proposed Project flow reductions at the base of the Dam (Dam
Outlet) yield flow reductions of 6.45% (a DEIR figure changed to the above
referred to 6.7% in the FEIR), 11.2%, 13.1%. 15.3%, 29%. 30%. 32%, and 58%.
Obviously by purposely selecting the method that gave the smallest flow
reduction to present in the EIR, the City is using statistics to bend the facts to
present its case in the best light.
But it matters little whether one takes the smallest 6.7% number used by the
City in the FEIR. or the 13.7% number which I quickly determined from page
ES-6 of the FEIR (which contradicts the 6.7% figure), or any other number.
What does matter greatly is that when that number is added to the
approximately 40% number the City now diverts from the River annually, the
cumulative impacts of the original and Proposed Project diversions are about
50% or more of the entire flows in the River!
The City has gotten away without providing adequate flow mitigation for these
past and current flow diversions. And now with the Proposed Project it is
trying to divert even more flow without any .downstream flow mitigation to
the River ecosystem in the Canyon or further downstream. It is clearly time
that the Board require this flow mitigation. To this end it is only
environmentally just, fair. and legal that the Board retain CSPA's official
Protest. This will help to ensure that the City mitigates its Salinas River water
diversions appropriately and adequately for steelhead and all other species
and habitats in the Salinas River ecosystem downstream of the Dam.
3. I will now address major, significant, and cumulatively significant impacts
of the Proposed Project upstream of the Dam.
It is important that the Board read my previous comment letters, especially
those of 7/24/97 on the RDEIR and 6/2/98 on the FEIR. as they go into
considerable detail on what the unmitigated or inadequately mitigated adverse
impacts of the Proposed Project would be around and upstream of the Salinas
Reservoir. I'm not going to repeat that critical and important information
here, when you already have it.
But I do want to emphasize and summarize what I consider to be the most
important impact above the Dam. This would be the loss of what is without
question one of the most magnificent and extensive willow riparian forests
left in the State. Most others have been destroyed by all sorts of development
including inundation drowning by over 160 large manmade reservoirs. And
much of the riparian forest I am concerned about with this Proposed Project
disappeared from inundation drowning by the construction and filling of the
original Salinas Reservoir 50 years ago.
It is preposterous that the FEIR argues that if the Proposed Project is built and
the Reservoir level is raised 19', this magnificent riparain forest about 2 miles
long on the Salinas River will notbe entirely destroyed by inundation. No
trees beyond seedlings and saplings would ever reestablish were this riparian
forest now exists. .and these seedlings and saplings, if they grow at all, would
only survive until the next high water inundation drowns them a year or two -
later. Such small intermittent "twigs" would never replace the multi-storied
willow riparian forest canopy that . currently exists nearly undisturbed by
human intervention-- especially since cattle grazing has been eliminated in
the riparian area in recent years by the Corps of Engineers/SLO County.
Still the City argues in its EIR that some of this riparian forest will survive the
frequent and long inundation periods. To disspell this argument once and for
all, please see Photograph 5 in "Exhibit 2", which I took on .4/17/99. This Photo
shows the current high water line at the upper end of the Reservoir where
the River enters the Reservoir. Note the downstream end of the River riparian
forest, which is about a quarter mile wide at this point. The line where the
high water line of the Reservoir intersects the riparian forest is dramatic and
telling. On the upland side of the Reservoir high water line stands a
magnificent and ancient riparian forest to 50' or more high. On the lake side
of the Reservoir high water line not a single tree exists! There are some native
and some weedy perennial and annual herbaceous marsh plants (palustrial
wetland hydrophytes), but no riparian trees or shrubs exist.
If the Reservoir is raised 19' by the Proposed Project, it will reach about 2
miles upriver and between there where it establishes its new high water mark
and the existing high water mark. every single tree (tens of thousands of
them) in this riparian forest will be destroyed by inundation drowning-- just
as was the entire riparian forest 50 years ago that once existed below the level
of the existing Reservoir high water mark.
Furthermore, another 3/4 mile of excellent riparian forest will be destroyed
by drowning on Alamo Creek with large old willows that in some places reach
to 60' or more in height (see Photo 6 of "Exhibit 2"). And over a quarter mile of
riparian forest combined will be lost on Toro, Chaparral, and Salsipuedes
creeks. Color Photographs 6 through 14 of my attached 6/2/93 FEIR comment
letter show portions of the 2-mile long Salinas River riparian forest that would
be destroyed by inundation drowning including some of the 2470 oaks that
would also be destroyed.
The FEIR says that though it has not yet done so, the City will find places to
mitigate the loss of this magnificent, intact Salinas River riparian forest.
Despite boasts the City makes that it can mitigate this riparian forest loss, the
best it will ever do is restore bits and pieces of riparian forest in various other
places to attempt to offset the over 70 acres of riparian forest/wetland that
would be destroyed by the Proposed project. But these will be smaller
fragmented riparian areas compared to the large intact forest that will be
destroved. And the former would never replace or have nearly the ecological
value to wildlife as the latter. Therefore, such proposed riparian restoration
mitigations of various un-named areas, likely many far from the area of
proposed impact, are inadequate for replacing the existing large, complex.
diverse, riparian forest.
Since I wrote my 6/2/91 comment letter on the FEIR. I have talked several
times by phone with Mr. Roger Zachary who is a long-time biology teacher at
Atascadero High School. Mr. Zachary has provided me with new information
that needs to be considered for the Proposed Project. In March 1997 Mr.
Zachary discovered foothill yellow-legged frogs in small wetland drainages
along the trail on the north side of the 2-mile long Salinas River riparian
forest I just discussed, and that would be destroyed�by inundation by the
Proposed Project. These frogs. which are currently on both the Federal and
l�.
State species of special concern lists, were found within 100' or so of Toro
Creek near its confluence with the River. The problem is this entire area
where Mr. Zachary found the frog and its habitat would be destroyed by
inundation from the Proposed Project.
For the Board's information and review I have attached Mr. Zachary's brief
report here as "Exhibit 5". Furthermore, he is having 3 color photos prepared
from slides and these will be available this weekend. I will send you color
copies as soon as Mr. Zachary supplies them to me late this weekend or ear'.y
next week. The destruction of this rare frog's habitat by the Proposed Project
needs to be taken into consideration as part of the Board's review of the City's
Permit 5882. It is therefore important that the Board preserve CSPA's Protest so
this and other environmefial/ecological information can be properly dealt
with at CSPA's rightful Protest hearing.
Finally, regarding impacts of the Proposed Project upstream of the Dam. I will
now briefly discuss the approximately 2170 oaks (live oaks, valley oaks, and
blue oaks) and 469 gray pines according to the FEIR that would also be
destroyed by inundation from the Proposed Project. It is easy to talk about the
destruction of trees. but it is more difficult to understand the loss without
visual perspective. The Board and the SWRCB staff should go to Salinas
Reservoir and see for yourselves the tremendous magnitude of the potential
loss of these ancient and large oak and pine trees around the Reservoir in the
Proposed Project inundation zone. This is especially important because
unfortunately the EIR does not provide color (or any) photographs of these
trees that would be drowned.
However, for the time being, to assist you in your current review to come to
the conclusion to retain CSPA's Protest. I have provided you with Photographs
7 and 8 (taken 4/10/99) in "Exhibit 2" here. These photos show just a small
portion of the oaks and pines that would be drowned by the Proposed Project.
but some visual perception of this magnitude of native tree loss is better than
none provided by the EIR. The FEIR says it will mitigate the loss of these mostly
ancient and large oaks and pines. But due to their age and size and the fact that
the City will likely later inappropriately propose planting seedlings and
saplings in rapidly disappearing valley grassland habitat, no adequate
mitigation exists to date for this great amount of native tree habitat loss.
The Board needs to consider this native oak and pine tree loss that would occur
from the Proposed Project. And in this respect the Board needs to preserve
CSPA's Protest so this and all other environmental/ecological information and
evidence relative to the Proposed Project can be properly dealt with at CSPA's
official Protest hearing.
In summary, CSPA. others, myself, and the EIR provide enormous information.
evidence, and arguments on the major, significant, and cumulatively
significant unaddressed. inadequately addressed, or inadequately mitigated
adverse impacts of the Proposed Project. And these inadequately mitigated
adverse impacts would occur extensively upstream and downstream of the Dam.
as discussed herein and in many other people's and agencies documented oral
and written comments on the Proposed Project and its EIR.
So, please take all this information as to the adverse environmental/ecological
impacts of the Proposed Project into consideration. and when you do. I am
confident that you will come to the correct conclusion to preserve CSPA's
Environmental Protest so it can properly be addressed at a Board hearing.
Sincerely,
�j RECEIVED
NOV - 9 2000
t
Mr. Harry S. Schueller, Chief Phil Ashley SLO CITY CLERIC
Division of Water Rights California Sportfishing
State Water Resources Control Board Protectin Alliance (CSPA)
P. O. Box 2000 1586 La Cita Court
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-544-9741 (home)
805-756-2505 (work)
September 29, 1999
Subject: Following is my written testimony as a fish and wildlife biologist for
CSPA regarding its Protest against San Luis Obispo City's water diversion
Permit 5882 (Permit), Application 10216, for its Proposed Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project (Project) to be heard by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) at its hearing in Sacramento on October 12, 1999.
I. Background:
I have provided comment letters and oral testimony on the Subject Project
including the Initial Draft Environmental Impact Report (IDEIR), the Revised
Draft EIR (RDEIR), and the Final EIR (FEIR). This testimony as well as other
oral testimony at Project meetings and hearings is published in the FEIR,
except for my oral testimony and comment letter on the FEIR, which I provided
to San Luis Obispo City (City) at its hearing on the FEIR 6/2/99. My oral
testimony on the FEIR is part of the transcripts of the 6/2/99 hearing. My
comment letter on the FEIR was supplied to you as part of Exhibit 1 in my letter
to you May 5, 1999, justifying the prevention of the dismissal of CSPA's Subject
Protest, and therefore my 5/5/99 letter and its 5 Exhibits are part of the
administrative record for the Subject hearing on October 12, 1999.
However, because my 6/2/98 FEIR comment letter is directly tied to some of my
written testimony herein, it is also being provided to you as CSPA "Exhibit FF"
for the Oct. 12 SWRCB hearing.
IT. An Unfriendv SWRCB Hearing Arrangements For The Working
Public:
The SWRCB has scheduled the Subject hearing for 10/12/99, despite efforts by
CSPA Counsel to have that date postponed for several reasons. However,
another reason this date is inappropriate is it has been established in
conjunction with another SWRCB hearing on November 1, 1999, for the same
City's Proposed Water Reuse Project (WRP) diversion from San Luis Obispo
Creek (SWRCB Application WW-2). It is impossible for CSPA and its
representitives including myself to provide adequate testimony on the Subject
Project and the WRP based on these conflicting hearing dates.
The SWRCB has provided myself and CSPA with a letter dated September 17,
1999, stating for the WRP "The State Water Resources Control Board has
tentatively scheduled a hearing on this matter for November 1, 1999. This
matter will be continued on November 2, if necessary. Formal notice of the
exact time and place of the hearing will be given at least 20 days prior to that
time." But 20 days prior to Nov. 1 is October 12-- the exact day the SWRCB
Subject Project hearing starts in Sacramento! And since it is now less than two
weeks until the Subject hearing on complex issues, CSPA's limited
representatives and their also limited time and monetary resources are
currently devoted to the Subject hearing.
The SWRCB Sep. 17 letter then states "The notice will contain a list of the
hearing issues and procedures for participating in the hearing." But as the
SWRCB letter attests to, the SWRCB allows very little time after the notice for
noticees to prepare often considerable and complex written hearing testimony
and supporting evidence/documentation. How can CSPA including myself be
expected to be preparing and sending you our testimony for the WRP at the
same time we are either in the last few days of preparing for the your Subject
hearing or we are actually in Sacramento providing oral testimony on the
Subject Project?
This type of hearing arrangement is publicly unfriendly because members of
the public like myself who have full time jobs other than the kinds that get
paid for working weekday business hours for their SWRCB work and
testimony, have to prepare all of our input and testimony at nights and on
weekends when we have many other family and social obligations. However,
since the same SWRCB staff person is a lead person on both the above discussed
projects, it should be relatively easy for the referenced staff member to
immediately coordinate with you to correct this hearing date conflict.
In this regard I would appreciate it if you would reschedule the SWRCB
hearing on the WRP after Monday, November 8, 1999: After the Oct. 12-13
Subject hearing, I must devote all of my spare time outside of my 40-hour work
week to working extensively with my attorney who has to prepare a complex
brief for me, which is due at the Ventura Appellate Court November 8. My
attorney is trying to help me out of difficult arrangements I have been
compelled to live under for several years, so I have no reasonable choice in
this matter.
Unlike in my case, CSPA's, and the fish, wildlife, and stream ecosystem
resources we represent, it will not be a hardship on the City if you reschedule
the City's WRP hearing to a later date. That is especially true because at the
City's proposed water projects hearing on March 23, 1999, which I attended and
testified at, City staff told the public that the SWRCB hearing on its WRP would
not be until at least January 2000.
If you do not change the WRP hearing date until after Nov. 1, my SWRCB
hearing testimony for both the Subject Project and the WRP will be seriously
dimenished.
Therefore, as the State's trust agency for the wise and balanced
environmental, economic, and social use of water, I sincerely and faithfully
trust that you will change the date for the WRP hearing to after Nov. 8, so I can
adequately testify for CSPA on behalf of fish, wildlife, and stream ecosystem
resources.
III. The FEIR Did Not Adequately Assess cumulative Impacts:
The SWRCB should not make a decision on the Project until the City makes an
adequate assessment of the cumulative water diversion impacts of the proposed
Project combined with the proposed Santa Margarita Ranch and Nacimiento
A
3
Water Supply projects. The FEIR superficially discusses both of these projects
on pages 3.16-3 and 3.16-6 respectively. However, it does not discuss these
projects relative to cumulative adverse impacts on the Salinas River,
tributaries, and related environmental resources due to the potential water
diversions from all three projects.
The FEIR indicates buildout of Santa Margarita Ranch could occur either under
present agricultural use or under a potentially approvable Specific Plan
allowing 500 dwellings and 1350 people, among other water using development
as a golf course, other recreational facilities and water using agriculture. The
FEIR should have assessed this admitted potential future development's use of
groundwater as well as surface flow and underflow of creeks on Santa
Margarita Ranch as Rinconada, Trout, Yerba Buena, Santa Margarita creeks
and their tributaries.
It is clear the City has been monitoring the potential water use of this type of
future develpoment because the City sent San Luis Obispo County a letter on
February 12, 1999 (CSPA "Exhibit AA") stating relative to the adjacent similarly
proposed Spanish Oaks Ranch development (proposed houses, golf course, etc.,)
in the County's jurisdiction:
"The environmental review should specifically address the availability of
the water supply for the proposed project....If the water supply is surface
flows (creeks) or undrflow of the creek systems, then there could be
impacts to the City's water supply from Santa Margarita Ranch....If the
proposed project will impact surface flows in the creeks flowing through
the site, which are tributary to the Salinas River, there may be an impact to
the establishment of a "live stream" condition in the Salinas River and a
subsequent impact to the City's water supplies from the lake."
It is as important for the City to assess the cumulative impacts relative to
stream water diversion on the known proposed Santa Margarita Ranch Project,
as it was for the County to assess under CEQA similar impacts on the proposed
Spanish Oaks Ranch development. It is now known to the City that the current
developer for Santa Margarita Ranch proposes to develope 3000 acres of water-
using vineyards with wells that draw from the underflow of the above stated
creeks on Santa Margarita Ranch (CSPA Exhibits "F" and "AA"). Recently CSPA
filed a water diversion Protest with the SWRCB relative to this proposed
vineyard use of stream underflow of tributaries to Salinas River. This new
proposed vineyard stream water use information plus the previously
unassessed cumulative impacts associated with the proposed Santa Margarita
Ranch Project require the preparation of a Supplemental EIR (SEIR).
Similarly, the FEIR states eii page 3.16-6 for the proposed NacimientoWater
Supply Project that p 'I would receive from this project 3380 acre feet
per year (AFY). Page ES-8 of the FEIR also indicates that this proposed project
would divert 17,500 AFY. With this information admitted to in the FEIR, in turn
a cumulative impact analysis should have been done for this amount of annual
diversion from Nacimiento River which is a tributary to Salinas River. It is
not reasonable for the City to rationalize on page 3.16-6 of the FEIR that
"cumulative effects between the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project and the
Nacimiento Water Supply Project are not anticipated", when immediately after
the FEIR states "the City may decide to pursue the Salinas Project in the
future....even if the Nacimiento Project is implemented."
The absence in the FEIR of a cumulative impacts analysis of the foregoing
information makes it imperative that before the SWRCB makes ' a decision on
the Project, the SWRCB needs to require that the City do a SEIR making this
cumulative impacts analysis on the Salinas River and its potentially effected
tributaries from the combined impacts of the Subject Proposed Project and the
proposed Santa Margarita Ranch and Nacimiento Water Supply projects.
IV. Environmental Impacts Downstream of Salinas Dam:
A. Unassessed Cumulatively Significant Environmental Impacts:
Although this Project would have significant unmitigable adverse
environmental impacts upstream of the Salinas Reservoir Dam (Dam) mostly
related to inundation impacts, which will be covered subsequently in this
testimony, much of the controversy regarding this Project has centered on
adverse environmental impacts associated with reduced flows downstream of
the Salinas Reservoir Dam. This is understandable when the City took the
position that although their would be significant cumulative impacts
downstream of the Dam, other than the existing inadequate "Live Stream
Agreement" (also known as the "Dead Stream Agreement" or "Dead Fish
Agreement", but hereafter referred to herein as the LSA), no mitigation was
required.
This is remarkable considering in October 1972 when the LSA was added as a
condition of the City's SWRCB Permit, it was also determined that the LSA would
only be temporary until studies could b done for appropriate flow releases
from the Dam (CSPA "Exhibit J"). Yet, 2� years later, without these flow studies
being done to the satisfaction and approval of the SWRCB, or no other studies
ever being done regarding the environmental adequacy of the Agreement
itself, the FEIR remarkably concluded the LSA was adequate mitigation even
though it does not mitigate the significant cumulative impacts acknowledged
in the FEIR (pages ES-17 and 5-2).
To allegedly mitigate those cumulative impacts the FEIR on page ES-17 states
that the City would "Consider participation in a basin-wide manaeement plan".
The FEIR then states "The authority to require and implement such a basin-
wide plan for the Salinas River (River) is not within the jurisdiction of the
City, thus this recommendation measure is not currently considered to be
feasible." A "mitigation" that is not feasible under the jurisdiction of the EIR
project proponent, the City in this case, cannot be construed as mitigation
under CEQA.
Furthermore the FEIR never addressed the cumulative impacts of the City's
existing Dam project combined with the Proposed Project. Without this
cumulative impacts analysis the FEIR is inadequate and needs a SEIR for this
purpose.
In the matter of the FEIR never discussing the cumulative impacts of the City's
existing Dam Project combined with the Subject Project, environmental issues
of 'impactson downstream flows and species reliant on them must be
considered. These species include common, rare, and threatened and
endangered species, as the federally threatened Salinas River steelhead,
S
federally endangered willow flycatcher, State and federally endangered least
Bell's vireo, federally threatened red-legged frog, and federally endangered
arroyo toad. These species also include quite a few amphibian, reptile, bird and
mammal State and federal Special Concern species.
Pertaining to the federally endangered arroyo toad, I failed to discuss in my
5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB justifying preserving the CSPA Protest, that when I
was on the Salinas River 4/10/99 to see the downstream most of the two private
dams in the Canyon, I found a toad near the River. I am not a toad specialist
and did not have with me at that time amphibian keys to help identify the toad.
So I was not aware that I should have taken a photo of the tubercles on its hind
feet to help identify it. But I did take several dorsal and side photos of it and
still have not had time to find a herpetologist who can tell me with certainty if
it is a western toad, as I suspect it is, or the endangered arroyo toad. There does
faintly appear to be a pale bar across the eyes and top of the head, which is
typical of the arroyo toad as indicated in several amphibian keys that I have.
But the bar is so vague on this specimen that it is not a distinguishing
identification feature.
I have provided the SWRCB with two photos of this toad on Page 1 of CSPA
"Exhibit CC". The point of this discussion and these provided photos is to seek
clarification from the SWRCB or an affiliated trust agency as CDFG if it is the
endangered arroyo toad. If it is, it needs to be investigated as part of a SEIR to
determined if the Proposed Project would adversely impact its population in
the Canyon.
Although the FEIR acknowledges significant impacts on most of these species
in the proposed Subject Project inundation zone above the Dam, including the
listed threatened and endangered species, except for the steelhead (which the
FEIR unjustifiably concludes does not likely exist in the Salinas River proposed
inundation zone), it fails to acknowledge significant or any impacts on all
these species downstream of the Dam.
All of these species in one way or another rely on riparian vegetation along
the River. And the FEIR fails to acknowledge or conclude that a 13.7% flow
reduction (see FEIR page ES-17 comparing Average Flow Without Project to
Average Flow With Project, and also see my 6/2/98 FEIR comment letter and my
5/5/99 letter to preserve the CSPA Protest on the Project) starting in the
Salinas River Canyon (Canyon) below the Dam will have a significant impact
on riparian vegetation and the mentioned species, threatened and endangered
and otherwise, reliant on it. This is a serious oversight by the EIR.
Even a more serious oversight is that the FEIR failed to assess the cumulative
impacts of the reduced flows of the proposed Subject Project combined with the
reduced flows of the City's existing Dam Project on downstream riparian
vegetation and the terrestrial and aquatic species reliant on it. Based on the
total inflow and outflow (Downstream Releases plus Spills) data in the table
titled Appendix A of APPENDIX K ADDITIONAL HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES
DOCUMENTATION of the FEIR, for the 51 year period from the beginning of Dam
diversion flow data in flow year 1944/45 to the last full year for which flow
data are shown in 1994/95, historical River flows have been reduced 43 %
(588,851AF [total releases + spills for the 51 years] divided by 1,041,009AF [total
inflow for the 51 years] = 0.57 X 100 = 57% outflow expressed as a per cent of
total inflow; 100% [historical inflows] minus 57% outflow = 43% reduction in
historical Salinas River flows caused by the existing Dam Project).
Reasonableness would indicate that this 43% flow reduction to the River
immediately downstream of the Dam is a significant adverse environmental
impact.
Because the 13.7% the Subject Project would further reduce River flows is
expressed as the reduction from the existing situation, which is with the Dam,
this figure cannot be added to the 43%. Instead, the amount the Subject Project
reduces historical River flows must be added to the 43% the existing Dam
Project has reduced historical flows. It can be calf lated that the Subject
Project alone will reduce historical River flows by c (from page ES-17 of
the FEIR: at Base of Dam, Average [annual] Flow Without Project [meaning with
the existing Dam Project] IS 14,927AFY minus Average Flow With Project [raising
the Dam 19'] 12,886AFY = 2,041AFY flow reduction from the Subject Project;
historical average inflows = 1,041,009AF [see above] divided by 51 years =
20,412AFY; 2,041AFY/20,412AFY = .10 X 100 = 10% reduction in historical Salinas
River flows caused by the proposed Subject Project). And again reasonableness
would indicate that this flow reduction to the River immediately downstream of
the Dam is a significant environmental impact, or at least a cumulatively
significant environmental impact.
So it is also reasonable to conclude that the 53% (43% + 10%) cumulative
average annual flow reduction to the Salinas River caused by the existing Dam
Project and the proposed Project would be a cumulatively significant
environmental impact. But the FEIR did not assess or even consider this
cumulatively significant reduction in flows impact on downstream riparian
vegetation and the species reliant on it.
Therefore the SWRCB should not make any decision on this Project until it first
requires the City to do a SEIR to assess this cumulatively significant impact on
the downstream environment. And in requiring the City to do this SEIR it
should also take into consideration that the Salinas River downstream (as well
as upstream) of the Dam is historic or recovery habitat for the federal
threatened and endangered species listed above (U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1998, and 1999) and the Board should ensure in its orders to the City
that this threatened/endangered species information is taken into account by
the City in doing this SEIR.
B. Downstream Flow Reduction Impacts to Steelhead and Other
Species:
In discussing the adverse impacts on Steelhead and other species downstream
of the Dam, it is important to analyse the impacts the existing Dam Project has
had and is having and the increased impacts the Subject Project would add to
that. So in this discussion it is neither possible nor desirable to move away
from adding to the previous discussion on cumulative impacts.
Additionally, most of the following discussion on the downstream ecological
impacts of the existing Dam Project and the Subject Project will focus on the 14
mile stretch of Salinas River in the Salinas River Canyon (Canyon)
immediately downstream of the dam. For downstream impacts this is consistent
with my previous EIR comment letters and my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB to
7
preserve the CSPA Protest on this Project (these letters are part of the SWRCB
administrative record for the upcoming Oct. 12 hearing).
I have focused on this downstream stretch of the River not only because the
City has ignored discussing its ecological richness in the FEIR based on an
erroneous assumed no impact due to the inadequate Live Stream Agreement,
but because this stretch of River has great potential for steelhead and other
species if adequate flows are restored to the Salinas River. Other than the
ecological insult fostered on it of large past, present, and additional proposed
flow reductions, the Canyon environs and the River itself are fairly pristine
compared to areas downstream of the Canyon.
I have also found it important and necessary to focus on this ecologically
important stretch of River because mostly SLO City and north County cities
along the River tend to somewhat selfishly debate the merits of the River and
its extractable water downstream of the Canyon. They are themselves focused
on the economic value of the River's water and unfortunately give little
attention to its ecological attributes, especially to those in the Canyon which
are mostly out of sight and out of mind with very few public human access
points.
But it is that inaccessibility that leads to relative pristineness lending the
Canyon to great environmental potential, if adequate water can be restored to
the River within! And if that water can be returned to the River, it will have
great benefit for steelhead and manyother species. Adding water back to the
River within the Canyon also has the enormous environmental benefit of in
turn adding needed flows to the River for approximately 130 miles downstream
of the Canyon .all the way to the Pacific Ocean.
project
Consistently throughout my oral testimony on the proposed SubjectAand my
EIR comment letters on it (part of the SWRCB administrative record), I have
requested from the City to no avail that they do flow and hydrology analysis in
this important Canyon stretch of the Salinas River. I believe they refused to do
this perceiving any attempt to do it as a further admission of the Subject
Project's likely significant impact on the Canyon stretch. It was simply easier
for them to consistently in return in the EIR and Project meetings state that
the LSA would mitigate any significant/cumulatively significant impacts from
flow reductions combined with runoff flows that would be generated from
within the Canyon watershed (FEIR, page ES-17 and 5-1).
But the avoidance of a lead project proponent CEQA agency from the very
beginning of an EIR process to assess impacts on an ecosystem based on the
assumed/presumed adequacy of (1) past environmentally unanalysed
"mitigations", as in the case of the LSA, or (2) existing conditions, as flows
generated only from the mostly narrow Canyon watershed, to mitigate those
impacts is clearly illegal under CEQA. CEQA requires an assessment of impacts
and any past unanalysed "mitigations" or existing conditions before any
conclusions can be drawn on those impacts and the ability of past
"mitigations" and conditions to reduce them to less than
significant/cumulatively significant.
Because the City shirked its CEQA responsibilities and basically provided no
hydrologica! or flow data for the Canyon stretch of River, other than to
indicate the proposed Project will reduce the average annual flows from the
8
current situation by 13.7% (documented previously herein from the FEIR),
CSPA with very limited monetary resources has had to provide some
reasonable approximation analysis of these flow reductions at various points
in the Canyon to demonstrate the significance/cumulative significance of
past, present, and proposed flow reductions associated with this Dam project.
It has previously been shown herein that the cumulative flow reduction to the
River immediately downstream of the Dam caused by the existing Dam and the
Proposed Project is 53%. This does not give an idea of what the flow reductions
would be at different points on the River further downstream in the Canyon.
Furthermore this average annual cumulative flow reduction figure does not
give an idea of what the flows in the Canyon are with the existing Dam and
would be with the Proposed Project.
The reality is that in the Canyon during the annual rainy season (primarily
November through April for the mediterranean type climate of the Central
Coast area of California) the Dam captures nearly all of the flows generated
from the approximately 134 square mile watershed upstream of the Canyon
and Dam (This approximately 134 square mile watershed is determined from
the approximately 112 square mile Salinas River watershed upstream of
Salinas Reservoir given on page 3.4-2 of the FEIR added to the approximately
21.85 square mile watershed of the Reservoir itself which is in Appendix B of
CSPA geotechnical consulting engineer Leon Chaulet's written testimony for
the Oct. 12 SWRCB hearing).
I stated that the Dam captures nearly all of the rainy season flows because for
the 52 year period (1943/44 - 1994/95) Appendix A of the FEIR's ADDITIONAL
HYDROLOGICAL ANALYSES DOCUMENTATION (APPENDIX K) provides rainy
season flow data, it can easily be calculated that only 1.7 cfs (cubic feet per
second) flows on average have been released from the Dam for the rainy
season months of November through April. The only factor nee4ed for
calculating this 1.7 cfs amount from the Downstream Releases inA F column in
APPENDIX K of the FEIR i I nv r io. i fja,,€€tyor of 2AF per day is equivalent to
I cfs per day (therefore: tota -+ or tie W'- year, 6 month rain season =
32,418AF divided by the total number of days in the 52 year, 6 month rain
season [9516 days] = 3AAF per day divided by 2 [2AF/day = lcfs] = 1.7cfs
downstream releases).
The only time the flows in the River in the Canyon are not almost entirely
generated from the.. narrow Canyon . watershed itself is in those uncommon
occassions when the Dam spills during the rainy season. The Yearly Spill Data
figure in APPENDIX K of the FEIR (a page number is not provided for this
figure in APPENDIX K) shows that for the 51-year period of spill data records
(1945-1995) since the Dam was built there has only been 16 years with spills
and with the Proposed Project there would only be 15 years with spills. And in
10 of those years spills with the Proposed project would be reduced
significantly by 209o' or more from the spills without the Proposed Project.
And in either situation it is obvious spills from the Dam are uncommon during
the raining season-- on average every third year at most, or about 33% of the
time.
Except for uncommon spill years, given the refusal of the City to do flow
analysis in. the Canyon relative to the existing Dam and the Proposed Project,
c!
CSPA provides the following idea of the Dams past, present, and proposed flow
reductions to the Salinas River in the Canyon based on our limited personnel
and monetary resources.
Rain falling on the Salinas River watershed generates flows in the Salinas
River. Prior to construction of the Dam the Salinas River in the Canyon had
the benefit of the entire watershed above the site of the Dam as well as the
watershed in the Canyon for generating its flows. When the Dam was installed
and the City in the early 1940's started capturing nearly all of the rain season
flows from the watershed upstream of the Dam, as previously discussed,
thereafter flows in the River in the Canyon were severly restricted to being
generated from within the narrow 14-mile long Canyon and its few side
canyons along Pilitas, Rinconada, and Calf Canyon creeks.
Regardless of what the amount of flows would have been during a particular
storm or series of storms without the Dam, with the Dam the flows would be
reduced generally proportional to the upstream area of watershed eliminated
by the Dam. So at each successive point along the River in the Canyon it can
reasonably be determined how much the flows have been reduced by the
existing Dam Project. To get the fraction of the watershed remaining for flow
generation at any given point along the River in the Canyon, the watershed of
the Canyon between that point and the Dam is divided by the entire Salinas
River watershed upstream of that point. This fraction -i-rr can then be converted
to percent (multiply by 100) to get the percentage of watershed remaining to
generate flows on the River at this point after the Dam was built.
Since watershed area is generally directly related to flows generated, this
percent of watershed remaining after the Dam was constructed gives a
reasonable approximation of the percentage of flows remaining in the River
at that point after the Dam was built, as compared to the flows that would have
existed at that point on the River prior to the construction of the Dam.
To make these flow approximations at several critical points along the River in
the Canyon, the watershed area in square miles in the Canyon upstream of
these points has been provided in Appendix A of CSPA geotechnical consultant
Leon Chaulet's written SWRCB testimony.
For example, it can be determined that after the Dam was built, the percent of
watershed remaining to generate River flows at the point just upstream of
Pilitas Creek, which is about 2 miles downstream of the Dam, is 1.4% of what it
would have been prior to construction of the Dam (1.95 sq. mi. divided by 1.95
sq. mi. + 134 sq. mi. (the watershed area above the Dam] = 0.014 X 100 = 1.4%). In
other words, 2 miles downstream of the Dam, only about 1.4% of the watershed
remains after the Dam was constructed to generate flows in the River at this
point. So only about 1.4% of the historical flows will exist in the River at this
point during the rain season, except when the infrequent spills occur. Or
conversely the River flows at this point on the River have been reduced
approximately 98.6% from what they would have been before the Dam was
built.
Calculated in the same manner as above, the approximate percent that flows
have been reduced by the existing Dam Project at the various other points
along the River in the Canyon shown in Mr. Chaulet's Appendix A are: (1)
co
about 2 miles downstream of the Dam just below the River's confluence with
Pilitas Creek, 3.6%, (2) about 4 miles downstream of the Dam just upstream of
Rinconada Creek, 90.8% (3) about 4 miles downstream of the Dam just below
the River's confluence with Rinconada Creek, 81.9%. (4) about 9.5 miles
downstream of the Dam just upstream of Calf Canyon Creek, 7 .8%, (5) about
9.5 miles downstream just below the confluence with Calf Canyon Creek,
74.9%, and (6) about 14.3 miles downstream of the Dam at the mouth of the
Canyon just upstream of Santa Margarita Creek, 72.6%.
To give more insight to what these existing Dam Project caused flow reductions
to the River in the Canyon mean, one can easily determine from Appendix A of
APPENDIX K of the FEIR what the- inflows to the Reservoir have been during
the 6 month rain season for the 52 year period inflow records are provided.
Then one can use the above percent flow reduction figures to see how the
existing Dam Project has reduced those flows on average during the rain
season for 52 years at these various River points in the Canyon.
One can calculate the average 52 year rain season flow in cfs the same way
the 1.7 cfs average Downstream Releases were previously herein determined
for the 52 year rain season period. The average inflow (which is basically
equivalent to the historical flows in the River if the Dam had not been built)
for the 52 year, 6 month rain season is 52.7 cfs (total inflow for the 52 years 6
month rain season = 1,003,504AF divided by the number of days in the 52 year, 6
month rain season [9516 days] = 105.5AF per day (AFD) divided by 2 [2AFD =
icfs] = 52.7 cfs inflows or historical flows in the River if the Dam had not been
built).
Therefore, in considering that this 52.7 cfs represents a reasonably average
flow in the River during the 6 month rain season if the Salinas Dam did not
exist, then one can in turn use the previously calculated percentages at points
on the River in the Canyon to determine how much the existing Dam Project
has reduced the flow in the River at those points. These reduced flows must
then be increased by 1.7 cfs, which is the average Downstream Releases
previously calculated herein for the 52 year, 6 month rain season.
Except in those uncommon years when there are Dam spills (slightly less than
33% of the years), these Dam caused rain season reduced flows for slightly
over 66% of all years are: (1) 1.7 efs flows at the base of the Dam (since there
is no watershed contributing to the River in the Canyon at the base of the Dam,
the only water that would be in the River at this point is the 1.7 cfs contributed
by the Downstream Releases during the rain season); (2) 2.4 cfs about 2 mile
downstream of the Dam just upstream of Pilitas Creek (10017o - 98.6%a = 1.4%;
1.4% of 52.7 cfs = 0.7 cfs; 0.7 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 2.4 cfs); (3)-L.1 cfs about 2 miles
downstream of the Dam just below the River's confluence with Pilitas Creek
(100% - 93.6% = 6.4%; 6.4% of 52.7 cfs = 3.4 cfs + 1.7 cfs t 5.1 cfs); (4) 6.5 cfs
about 4 miles downstream of the Dam just upstream of Rinconada Creek (100% -
90.8% = 9.2%; 9.2% of 52.7 cfs = 4.8 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 6.5 cfs); (5) 11.2 cfs about 4
miles downstream of the Dam just below the River's confluence with
Rinconada Creek (100% - 81.9% = 18.1%; 18.1% of 52.7 cfs = 9.5 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 11.2
cfs); (6) 12.9 cfs about 9.5 miles downstream of the Dam just upstream of Calf
Canyon Creek (100% - 73.8% = 21.2%; 21.2% of 52.7 cfs = 11.2 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 12.9
cfs); (7) 14.9 cfs about 9.5 miles downstream of the Dam just below the River's
it
confluence with Calf Canyon Creek (100% - 74.9% = 25.1%; 25.1% of 52.7 cfs =
13.2 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 14.9 cfs), and (8) 16.1 cfs about 14.3 miles downstream of the
Dam at the mouth of the Canyon just upstream of Santa Margarita Creek (100%
- 72.6% = 27.4%; 27.4% of 52.7 cfs = 14.4 cfs + 1.7 cfs = 16.1 cfs).
Since each of the above highlighted flow amounts is a reasonable
approximation of the flows in the River at various points in the Canyon
resulting from the reduced flows caused by the Existing Dam Project, one can
determine the approximate flows that would occur in the River at these points
in the Canyon if the Dam had not been built by adding 52.7 cfs to each of the
above highlighted flow amounts. The only other adjustment that would then
need to be made to these flow amounts if the Dam did not exist is to subtract
from each amount the 1.7 cfs Downstream Releases, since there would be no
such releas6s if the Dam did not exist. Therefore, after making these
adjustments, the approximate flows that would be in the River at these same
points in the Canyon if the Dam had not been built are,. in the same sequence
as above: (I) 52.7 cfs, (2) 53.4 cfs, (3) 56.1 cfs, (4) 57.5 cfs, (5) 62.2 cfs,
(6) 63.9 cfs. (',) 65.9 cfs, and (8) 67.1 cfs.
From comparing the corresponding flows in the above 2 paragraphs for each
point in the Canyon with and without the existing Dam Project, one can see
that the existing Dam Project has for over the past half century since its
construction in 1941 caused more than simply unspecific significant flow
reduction impacts. It has caused enormous flow reductions to the River
throughout the Canyon from the Dam to the Canyon mouth 14.3 miles
downstream. These enormous flow reductions ranging from 98.6% at the base
of the Dam to 72.6% at the Canyon mouth indicate that even without the EIR
doing analysis for significant and cumulatively significant impacts to the
Canyon River ecosystem, steelhead and other aquatic and terrestrial River and
riparian species .would be significantly impacted. In fact, even though
mounting evidence exists that steelhead still use the River in the Canyon, flow
reduction of this great a magnitude certainly had a significant impact on the
numbers of steelhead using the Canyon stretch of River.
Previously herein I showed that from APPENDIX K of the.A*a+-FEIR, it could be
determined from the EIR data that on average flows have been reduced in the
Salinas River at the base of the dam about 43%. This figure, even though itself
dramatically indicating the long-term flow reductions that have occurred to
the River below the Dam, does not correspond to the- much higher
approximately 98.6% flow reductions below the Dam to 72.6% flow reductions
at the mouth of the . Canyon that I have subsequently calculated herein.
The main reason for this sizeable difference is the 43% figure determined
from EIR data includes uncommon but often large spills. These large but
uncommon spills when averaged in with the frequent but much smaller
Downstream Releases, yield an average flow reduction from the existing Dam
Project that is considerably less than the flow reductions that actually occur in
the Canyon stretch of the River during the 6 month rainy season.
One can see how the infrequent (occuring about every third year) but large
Spills distort the average flow reduction which includes the much smaller
Downstream Releases by a simple analysis of flow data in Appendix A in
APPENDIX K of the FEIR. It can be calculated from Appendix A that Spills total
tz
530,600AF of the 588,851AF total outflow (Spills + Downstream Releases) from
the Dam over the 51 year period data are provided, whereas Downstream
Releases total only 58,251AF of the 588,851AF total outflow. Therefore,
although Spills occur only about 33% of the years and typically for only a few
months out of the year when they do occur, as compared to Downstream
Releases, which occur 100% of the years and typically year round, the former
have yielded 900/v (530,600AF of Spills divided by 588,851AF total outflow X 100 =
90%) of the total Dam outflow and the latter only 10% (58,251AF of Downstream
Releases divided by 588,851AF total outflow X 100 = 10%) of the outflow over this
51 year period since the Dam was built.
The reality of this analysis for steelhead and all other species utilizing the
River/riparian ecosystem and for the River/riparian ecosystem itself is that
except in those few months of the year in those infrequent years when spills
occur, all .the rest of the greater number of years and much greater number of
months, there is dismally inadequate flows in the River to prevent significant
and. cumulatively significant adverse impacts to these species and the
River/riparian ecosytem.
The forgoing discussion has focused on flow reductions to the River in. the
Canyon caused by the existing Dam Project to give one a better idea of the
significant and drastic effects it has had on the River in the Canyon and in
turn on the species, as steelhead, reliant on it. In this respect, one will better
be able to now understand the significant and especially cumulatively
significant adverse impacts the Proposed Subject Project would have on this
Canyon riverine ecosystem if the Dam is raised 19' and flows are reduced even
more in the stretch of River in the Canyon, as well as further downstream.
This discussion can be brief because any additional flow reduction, large or
small, to the River in the Canyon caused by any project including the Proposed
Project will clearly have a cumulatively significant adverse impact when
combined with the significant impact the existing Dam Project already has
had. So when one considers, as earlier shown herein from the .EIR (page ES-17
and Appendix A of APPENDIX K) that the Proposed project would reduce flows
immediately downstream of the Dam 13.7% from the existing flow situation in
the River, or 10% from the historical flow situation in the River if the Dam had
not been built, this amount of flow reduction, which is likely significant in
itself, when added to the already discussed significant and drastic flow
reductions caused by the existing Dam Project, will cause cumulatively
significant impacts to the Salinas River ecosystem in the Canyon.
I stated above that the Proposed Project would, besides causing cumulatively
significant impacts with the existing Dam Project, also likely itself cause
significant impacts to the River stretch in the Canyon. However, this latter
determination is difficult to state with certainty because inappropriately and
illegally under CEQA the City refused to assess this potentially significant
impact on the Canyon riverine ecosystem simply stating in the FEIR without
any analysis that, one, the LSA (page ES-17). and, two, winter flows downstream
of the Dam during wet years (page 5-1) would adequately mitigate downstream
impacts.
I have previously addressed the latter with discussion and data showing that
whether during wet years or dry years, when the Dam blocks nearly all the
13
flows from the River upstream of the Canyon, there is very little flow
generated in the narrow Canyon watershed itself to compensate for the much
larger upstream flows that have been blocked off by the Dam that the River
ecosystem in the Canyon was in the past reliant on. Furthermore the FEIR
(page ES-17) contradicts itself and comes to the same conclusion I have for the
significant/cumulatively significant downstream impacts of the Proposed
Project during wet years when under the heading Potentially Significant
Impacts it states "Potential adverse hydrologic or hydrogeologic effects in the
Salinas River downstream from the reservoir due to decreases in downstream
flows during the winter months of above normal rain years." Then the FEIR
leaves this impact unmitigated when on the same page under the heading
Residual Impact it states for this impact "Insignificant (project specific) to
Significant (cumulative)".
With this FEIR contradiction and admission to . an unmitigated cumulatively
significant downstream riverine impact, as .previously stated herein, the
SWRCB should require the City to do a SEIR on this FEIR admitted cumulatively
significant impact. And the SEIR should this time do an indepth study of the
impacts of the Proposed Project on the River ecosystem in the Canyon to truly
and honestly help determine if there will be significant as well as
cumulatively significant impacts to this downstream ecosystem.
Because the FEIR also said the LSA will mitigate downstream flow reductions
caused by the Proposed Project, I will now specifically address the LSA relative
to its inadequacy for mitigating downstream flows.
B. The Inadequacy of the Live Stream Agreement to Mitigate
Project Flow Reductions:
I thoroughly discussed the inadequacy of the LSA to mitigate significant and
cumulatively significant adverse impacts from reduced flows in the Salinas
River caused by the existing Dam Project and that would be caused by the
Proposed Project in my letter of 5/5/99 to the SWRCB to preserve the CSPA
water diversion Protest on this Project. Although my 5/5/99 letter is already
part of the administrative record for the Oct. 12 hearing, as a convenience and
courtesy to the SWRCB members, CSPA is also submitting it as CSPA "Exhibit
DD", but this time without its 5 exhibits, which you already have in the record
(including in its "Exhibit 1" 14 color photographs downstream and upstream of
Salinas Reservoir as part of .my 6/2/98 FEIR comment letter, and in its "Exhibit
2" 8 color photographs downstream and upstream of the Reservoir directly
referred to in the narrative of my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB).
Since CSPA has provided you with my 5/5/99 letter in the above two manners, I
will not repeat here as my written testimony for the Oct. 12 hearing
everything I said in that letter relative to the LSA or anything else discussed
subsequently in this letter, as significant unmitigable impacts the Proposed
Project would cause upstream of the Dam primarily by inundation. Instead in
this written testimony herein, I will summarize what I covered in my 5/5/99
letter to you on these relevent environmental issues and cover in more detail
new information available to me on these relevent environmental issues since
I provided you with the 5/5/99 letter.
As I have already discussed herein, I have focused on the past, present, and
proposed adverse impacts of the Salinas Dam Project in the Canyon stretch of
l�
the River and I will do it relative to the LSA also. As I said in the 5/5/99 letter, I
believe the Canyon stretch of the River is being seriously (and likely
negligently) environmentally overlooked in the operation of the already
inadequate LSA. I essentially stated in my 5/5/99 tetter that I knew of no one
associated with the Project or otherwise that was checking for a "visible flow",
as required by the LSA, in the Canyon area. Since then I think someone told
me unofficially that a "visible" LSA flow is checked for at the Highway 58
Bridge, which is about 9.5 miles downstream of the Dam.
Even if the LSA is checked for compliance at this Bridge, that leaves 9.5 miles
of River below the Dam that is not checked for LSA compliance. Furthermore,
the fact that the River might be checked at the Highway 58 bridge does not
mean even if a visible flow is seen in the River at the Bridge, one exists for the
next approximately 4.8 miles downstream to the mouth of the Salinas River
Canyon.
Also I stated in my 5/5/98 letter that I was concerned flows were not being
released from the Dam often enough and in quantitites enough to provide
adequate scouring to create fish and other aquatic species' cut bank, pool,
riffle, and run habitat, and to provide necessary scouring function for the
regeneration of riparian vegetation. I have seen nor heard nothing since to
change my concern on these impacts not being addressed by the LSA or other
Dam releases. And I expressed concern in the letter that in the low flow season
(typically late spring, summer, and early fall often coinciding with May
through October) flows were not being released in a persistent and sustained
manner to scour (flush) the runs and riffles clean of silt so clean gravels
would aid in the nursery and rearing stages of young fish, as juvenile
steelhead, native western suckers. etc.. I am now even more worried than then
about this concern for the following reasons.
As I mentioned in the 5/5/99 letter, I was on Mr. Otto Schmidt's property in the
Canyon on 4/23/99. And I further stated that contrary to the FEIR indicating
that there would be no Proposed Project specific significant downstream
impact due to the unaltered existence of the LSA, the LSA was clearly not
preventing significant impacts to the River that day because I estimated there
was less than 1.0 cfs flow in the River that day. I supplied two color photos
numbered I and 2 in Exhibit 2 of my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB documenting
this less than 1 cfs flow on 4/23/99. I am also supplying the Board with two
more photos on Page 2 of CSPA "Exhibit CC" for the Oct. 12 SWRCB hearing
showing this terribly inadequate flow for the Salinas River ecosystem and
species reliant on it as steelhead.
I also indicated in my 5/5/99 letter that this lack of nearly any flow was
allowing gravel beds to silt over and riffles to dry up. And I stated that just a
few days before, on 4/17/99, I was on the Salinas River immediately upstream
of the Reservoir and estimated significantly greater inflows into the
Reservoir.
Now that CSPA has acquired the daily flow data for most of the years that the
LSA has been in existence (CSPA "Exhibit K"), the days of 4/17/99 and 4/23/99,
when I was on the River, indicate a possibly more alarming situation than I
previously expected relative to the inadequacy of the LSA for maintaining fish
and their habitat in good condition, as required at all times downstream of a
Dam by Fish and Game Code 5937. According to the inflow data for 4/17/99
r�
when I was on the River above the Reservoir, 65.5AF flowed into the lake that
day, or 32.75 cfs inflows (2AF per day = lcfs per day), which is a fairly
significant inflow for most years at the very end of the rain season.
In light of this amount of flow in the River upstream of the Reservoir, one
can see how environmentally inadequate in comparison virtually no flow
being released from the Dam just a few days later on 4/23/99 would be. But
before this harsh a conclusion can be drawn, one must look at what the flow in
the River above the Reservoir was not on 4/17/99 but instead on 4/23/99,• the
day I saw virtually no flow in the River below the Dam at about 4pm, which is
when I took all the photos just referred to and that CSPA has supplied to the
SWRCB. The inflow to the Reservoir for 4/23/99 was 23.16AF, or 11.6 cfs. Clearly
the natural flowing River upstream of the Reservoir was rapidly declining in
flows this late in the rain season, which would be expected. But 11.6 cfs flow in
the River above the Reservoir is still a decent mid spring flow for the River
upstream of the Reservoir.
However the Downstream (flow) Releases from the Dam for 4/23/99 were
0.13AF, or about 0.07 cfs, which confirms what I saw that day and what the 4
CSPA photographs at your disposal for viewing likewise show. In fact, the flow
data in CSPA "Exhibit K" show not only 0.07 cfs Downstream (flow) Releases for
4/23/99, but 0.07 cfs releases for the entire months of March and April, even
though the average daily inflow for these two months was 54AF, or 27 cfs
(calculated from the Inflow totals for 3/99 and 4/99 in CSPA "Exhibit K").
No other conclusion can be reached from a fisheries management perspective
that late winter and early springtime (as represented by the two months of
March and April) flow releases of 0.07 cfs is a human caused catostrophe to the
Salinas River ecosystem in the Canyon and further downstream. Even if
Salinas River tributaries downstream of the Canyon are providing a "visible
flow" in the Salinas River down to its confluence with the Nacimiento River
about 20 miles downstream from the Canyon, this does not mean compliance
with the already inadequate LSA when no flow is being provided to the Canyon
stretch of the River and all the species residing in or otherwise relying on the
River.
The LSA has been a political hoax and a highly biased Agreement in favor of
SLO City at the great environmental/ecological expense of the Salinas River. It
hides behind the non-ecological notion that the Salinas River ecosystem in the
Canyon and further downstream can healthily survive on a mere "visible"
trickle. Fish as juvenile steelhead and other aquatic species cannot live in a
visible trickle, but instead must have adequate flows to carry on all of their
life cycle stages throughout a given year and in sequential years.
In fact the LSA has acted to harm the River system more due to its existence
than if it did not exist. For example, CSPA "Exhibit U titled One Hundred Years
of Rainfall Trends in California shows on Figure 1 that the average annual
rainfall for all of California from about the end of the early 1940's when the
City began taking water from the River coincided with a somewhat less than
average period of rainfall up to about the time of the beginning of the LSA in
1972. Thereafter, Figure 1 shows an overall period of somewhat greater than
average rainfall coinciding with the LSA period of time, other than, the
drought period in the late 1980's. This same rain trend is shown for most
16
regions of the State including the Central Coast on Figure 2 of CSPA "Exhibit U
(see also CSPA "Exhibit M").
However, the River's inflow bounty to the Reservoir in a period of overall
good rain years, need not be shared as outflow to the River downstream of the
Dam. This problem derives from the LSA only requiring that a visible trickle
be seen in the River downstream of the Dam even in wet years, .or if a visible
trickle cannot be seen, then all thel` flows equivalent to the inflows must be
released from the Dam. But, to the benefit of the City, often when the latter
situation developes and no flows are visible downstream as per the LSA, no
flows have to be released because by that time it is either late in the year or in
a drought period when no flows exist in the Salinas River entering the
Reservoir.
One can see what a dismal record the LSA has had for the downstream River by
comparing Inflows to Downstream Releases since the LSA was crafted in 1972.
The average daily Inflow to the Reservoir over the 23 year period since 1972
that data is provided in Appendix A of APPENDIX K of the FEIR is 68AF
(574,337AF Inflow divided by 8395 days [23 yrs. X 365 days/yr.] ), or 32 cfs. In
comparison the outflows over this same period are very small.
From Appendix A it can easily be determined for the 23 year LSA period how
many months fell into different average AF per day (AFD) categories (by
dividing the AF released for each month by 30.5 days/month to get average
AFD for each month) for Downstream Releases, as 0 AFD, 1 AFD, 2 AFD, 4 AFD, 6
AFD, 8 AFD, 10 AFD, etc.. Then, because fisheries scientists do not typically
communicate in AFD flows, but rather in cfs flows, these AFD flows were
converted to cfs flows using the conversion 2 AFD = ]cfs.
This determination from Appendix A Downstream Releases data gave the
following number of months with the following cfs Downstream (flow)
Releases during the 23 year LSA period: 45 months with 0 cfs, 74 months with
less than 1 cfs, 41 months with between 1 and 2 cfs, 33 months with between 2
and 3 cfs, 25 months with between 3 and 4 cfs, 9 months with between 4 and 5
cfs, 29 months with between 5 and 8 cfs, 5 months with between 8 and 10 cfs, 2
months with between 10 and 20 cfs, and O months with over 20 cfs.
This information shows that for the 23 year period flow data is available since
the beginning of the LSA, (1) 5990 of the months had Downstream Releases of
less than 2 cfs. (2) 88% of the months had Downstream Releases of less than 5
cfs. (3) 98% of the months had Downstream Releases of less than 8 cfs, and (4)
99% of the months had Downstream Releases of less than 10 cfs. These
Downstream Releases figures are paltry in comparison to the average monthly
Inflow of32 cfs for the same 23 year period since the beginning of the LSA.
Spills marginally augment these flows in the years they occur, but as already
discussed herein, over the long term spills do not occur in enough of the years
and in enough of the months (only a few months during the rain season) of
the years that they do occur. So, relative to the impacts of the LSA on the River
ecosystem, Spills are of no help to Downstream Releases for the great majority
of the months when the only outflow from the Dam is Downstream Releases. In
fact, Appendix A shows that of the 276 months in the 23 year LSA period, only
29 months had spills, or only 10.5% of the total months had spills. And this
17
10.5% figure is higher than what can be expected over the longer term, since
Appendix A shows that for the 624 months of the 51 complete years (1944/45 to
1994/95) for which Dam flow data is compiled, only 47 months had spills, or
only 7.5% of the total months for the 51 year period had spills. So these few
spill months do not augment flows for the great majority of the months
(92.5%) that the downstream River must receive all of its flows from the
Downstream Releases operation of the Dam!
The LSA with its assumption that a visible trickle meets all downstream users
vested water rights, including fishes' vested water rights under Fish and Game
Code 5937, has led to the unteniable and unacceptable Downstream Releases in
comparison to River inflows as analysed and discussed above.
Also, as I discussed in my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB, adequate flow releases
unaddressed by the miserly LSA are needed for upstream migrating adult
spawning steelhead to pass over the two small private Dams on the River in the
Canyon. I already provided my opinion with discussion in my 5/5/99 letter that
these two Dams do not constitute a migration barrier to spawning steelhead if
adequate flows exist in the River so steelhead can pass over the spillways of
these Dams.
In Exhibit 1 of my 5/5/99 letter I provided the SWRCB with two color
photographs (labelled 1 and 2) taken 5/30/98 of the upper small dam and its
spillway. These 2 photographs show adequate flows passing over the spillway
for fish such as steelhead to migrate upstream over the dam, or for
downstream migrant fish such as adult and juvenile steelhead to swim
downstream past the dam. However, the 2 photos labelled 1 and 2 previously
discussed herein taken on 4/23/99 and provided to you in Exhibit 2 of my
5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB, and the two additional photos being provided to you
on Page 2 o�SPA "Exhibit CC" for the Oct. 12 hearing show the herein
discussed 0. cfs Downstream Releases for 4/23/99, which is not nearly
adequate flow for fish to migrate up or down stream in the spillway to get past
this upper small dam.
I also provided the SWRCB with two photos labelled 3 and 4 in Exhibit 2 of my
5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB showing the lower small dam in the Canyon on
4/10/99 with what I estimated to be inadequate flows for spawning steelhead to
jump and swim over the spillway that particular day. But I made it clear that
with adequate flows, perhaps 10 cfs or slightly more, steelhead would be able to
jump and swim over the spillEway for this Dam.
Besides the 2 photos of this small dam and spillway I have already supplied you
with in my 5/5/99 letter, I am providing you with on Page 3 of CSPA "Exhibit
CC" two more photos of this dam and spillway also taken 4/10/99. One of these
photos shows a 6' tall man standing. next to the spillway. The point of this photo
is that, as it is well within the ability of adult steelhead to jump over 6' high
instream obstacles, as the approximately 6' verticle part of the spillway shown
adjacent to the man, it can be seen from the photo this dam and its spillway are
not a barrier to upstream migrant adult spawning steelhead, if adequate flow is
in the River. It should also be noted from this photo that the upper few feet of
this spillway just above the height of the man's head, is not verticle, but
instead angled in such a way that once a steelhead jumps the 6' verticle part of
L8
the spillway and lands on this angled portion, all it has to do to finish passing
over the spillway is to swim over these last few feet of the spillway.
The other photo on Page 3 of CSPA "Exhibit CC" has been provided to you to
show the overall configuration and size of this instream private dam.
Although I have determined that these dams and their spillways are not
migration barriers to upstream and downstream migrating steelhead and other
fish if adequate flows are in the River, the spillways of both dams need to be
reworked to be even more friendly to migrating steelhead and other fish.
Steelhead likely have vested rights to the River prior to these dam owners, and
it is incumbent on these people to ensure their spillways are easily passable by
steelhead. In this regard, both spillways need assessement for some
rehabilitation work for easy passage of steelhead and other fish. I believe
these spillways should be reworked so spawning steelhead and other fish could
jump and swim over them not only in medium to high water conditions but
also in the low flow water conditions of a drought or the seasonal low flow
conditions of summer and fall.
Also in my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB I stated that there is adequate proof
spawning steelhead can pass upstream over the downstream dam in the
Canyon. That proof was given in my letter in the form of recent personal
professional fisheries communication between Mr. Chuck Marshall, a local
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game (CDFG) fisheries biologist, and myself. I stated in
my 5/5/99 letter that Mr. Marshall confirmed to me 'that in 1997 he and others
were shown a 24" frozen steelhead by the owner of the property of the
upstream private dam in the Canyon. The owner had told Mr. Marshall and the
others that he caught the large steelhead in the pool below his dam, which
attests to this fish migrating over the downstream dam in the Canyon.
I also stated in the 5/5/99 letter that Mr. Marshall had told me that based on his
seeing this 24" fish, he was sure it was a native steelhead and not a trout that
had been stocked in Salinas Reservoir and washed over the Dam during high
water. Since I sent the SWRCB my 5/5/99 letter, I have again talked to Mr.
Marshall and he reconfirmed to me that in his expert opinion the 24" fish was
a steelhead and not a planted trout. And as I indicated in my 5/5/99 letter, Mr.
Otto Schmidt, who owns the property just downstream of the upstream dam, has
also told me about this 24" steelhead, as well as other personal knowledge he
has regarding catching steelhead in the Canyon stretch of the River below the
Dam (see CSPA "Exhibit Z").
In my opinion the most noteworthy information Mr. Schmidt has told me about
regarding catching steelhead in the past, were the juvenile steelhead in the
approximately plus or minus 6" size range he caught and released in 1997. He
described these fish to me as being sleek, in good condition, and with healthy
completely intact fins. The description of these fish fit that of what one would
expect for juvenile steelhead in the River; and was significantly different
from the larger, poorly conditioned, frayed and clipped finned rainbow trout
Mr. Schmidt caught on 5/30/98 when I was with him.
I believe that it is likely these larger trout in the 10" to 14" size range were
fish that washed over Salinas Dam during that El Nino winter. A photo that I
took on 5/30/98 of one of these larger, non-steelhead, stocked rainbows that
Mr. Schmidt had just caught in the River on his property is on Page 4 of CSPA
"Exhibit CC". This fish is not at all like the small, sleek juvenile steelhead Mr.
Schmidt described to me and caught the year before on his property.
Because it is incumbent for the recovery of steelhead in the Salinas River and
specifically in the 14 mile Canyon stretch of the River that they have
unbridled, and easy access over the two private dams in the Canyon, progress
needs to be made on this issue. Therefore, as part of the SWRCB's overall work
on water issues of the Salinas River, it and other water and natural resource
public trust agencies should start working immediately with the owners of
these two dams and all other interested parties as CSPA to ensure these two
private dams and their spillways in the Canyon stretch of the River are as easy
as possible for migrating fish as steelhead to pass over in both directions and
in high and low flow conditions.
C. Resolving the Live Stream Agreement and the City's Proposed
Subject Project:
The City has huge, complex, unresolved environmental, economic and social
issues associated with the existing Dam Project. These issues as demonstrated by
the long paper trail of SWRCB Permit extensions and proceedings on such
extensions on multiple issues that .become more convoluted as one researches
into the overall issue of the City's existing and Proposed Dam projects are
going to be extremely difficult for all involved to solve without adding to the
problem more water diversions from the Proposed Project.
It is time, hard and tough, or not, for the City to not only acknowledge that it
has taken all the water it possibly can from the Salinas River under the
existing Dam Project, with much undone mitigation remaining to be done on
that issue, without continuing to try to add the likely forever unresolvable,
unsolveable issues and impacts of the Proposed Project. The LSA by most
accounts but the City's has been an environmental/ecological failure. And
such a failing form of alleged mitigation must not from this point on be
allowed by the SWRCB, CDFG, or anyone else to be promulgated across the State
and land as bonified stream flow mitigation worthy of being carried forth into
the new century and millennium.
The tenacity of the City to cling to this unstudied, untested Agreement without
any other idea in their massive set of FEIR documents how to resolve the
downstream environmental, water rights, and all other matters of issues., is
strong admission in itself the Proposed Project is not doable. Before the City'
has any right to pursue this water dream, it must come to grips with reality and
help solve all the complex issues left hanging with the existing Dam Project.
For the River ecosystem it cannot be assumed that the LSA based on a mere
.visible" trickle is adequate for meeting the vested rights of the River
ecosystem including steelhead, other fish and aquatic species, and terrestrial
species dependent on it (see CSPA "Exhibit Y"). These vested rights of fish and
their River habitat go back in law before the Corps of Engineers hurriedly
built the Dam in WWII years. without due regards for downstream water rights
because of the emergency nature of those times. Somehow the City still thinks
an equivalent emergency is facing it and the citizens it always alleges to
represent. I live in SLO City and it does not represent me or others concerned
about the environment/ecosystem on this issue.
zo
California Fish and Game Code 5937 states "the owner of any dam shall allow
sufficient water at all times to pass through a fish way, or in the absence of a
fishway, allow sufficient water to pass over, around or through 'the dam, to
keep in good condition any fish that may be planted or exist below the dam."
This Code section dates to 1937 and was prior to that Code Section 637 dating
back to 1915 (see CSPA representative Felix Smith's written testimony for the
Oct. 12 hearing). This establishes fishes' vested rights to adequate water in the
Salinas River 1pelow the Dam for their "good" condition (which definition is
also supplied 4VMr. Smith in his written testiminy) prior to the Corps' or the
City's early 1940's Permit rights to the diverted water.
Appropriating pre-vested water without adequate study of the previous rights
to that water during war years is one thing, but continuing to do the same
thing 55 years later still without adequate analysis and study of thoserights is
another. The City needs to know that people interested in protecting the
Salinas River ecosystem downstream of the Dam will not relinquish the River
ecosystem's, including fishes' vested pre-City appropriations ef- alinas River
water. tty ►ts
Also the highest question has to be does the City actually hold any
appropriations rights to Salinas River water? This is based on the pre-City
vested rights to Salinas River water as per Code Sectio 937 and on other
downstream users various rights to such water. TheJdWrights are clearly
manifest in ORDER FOR RECONSIDERATION OF "ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME ON CERTAIN PERMITS, IMPOSING CLARIFYING PERMIT TERMS, AND
REVOKING CERTAIN PERMITS TO APPROPRIATE WATER" DATED JUNE 1, 1972
(CSPA "Exhibit J"). Page 4 of this Order states:
According to the Corp's operations and maintenance manual for Upper
Salinas River Dam, the depletion rate for the underground reservoir
between Salinas Dam and the City of Paso Robles was estimated at 70 acre-
feet per day in 1959 but may vary from year to year. The Board estimates
that the summer water requirements of the users along that reach of the
river are about 30 cfs.
With fish and their River ecosystem having prior water rights to the Salinas
River downstream of the Dam and users between the Dam and Paso Robles
potentially having summer low flow season water rights to about 30 cfs, and
with possibly at least some of these users having vested rights prior to the
City's, it could be that the City has very little rights to the water being diverted
from its existing Dam Project. This possibility which must soon be resolved by
the SWRCB and others, could lead to the distinct possibility the City has no
rights beyond some portion of the water it diverts from the existing Dam
Project making the Proposed Subject Project moot.
Beyond soon resolving this complex water rights issue, as I discussed in my
5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB, flow studies must also be soon initiated to determine
adequate flows for the River with the existing Dam Project to keep fish as
steelhead and all aquatic and terrestrial species reliant on the River ecosystem
and the River ecosystem itself in good condition downstream of the Dam
including in the ecologically important Salinas River Canyon. Whether the
various experts and interested parties determine the Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology (IFIM), as for in the steelhead suitable 14-mile
Canyon stretch of the River, or some other flow study methodology as the
21
Montana Method, or whatever be used to make these adequate flow
determinations, this process must start soon.
In the meantime the SWRCB should issue an order prescribing the conditions
at the end of CSPA representative Felix Smith's written testimony. And the
SWRCB should further in consultation with CDFC, CSPA, NMFS, USFWS, and
other interested parties issue an order or initiate in some other manner an
interim process that will . establish temporay flow regimes far more conducive
to the survival of fish, other aquatic and terrestrial species, and their Salinas
River ecosystem habitat than the current inadequate LSA provides (a visible
trickle), until the proper flow studies to determine adequate flows foE fishes'
good condition can be done.
D. Habitat Requirements for Steelhead in the Salinas River Canyon
Relative to Flow Requirements:
In both my 515/99 letter to you (CSPA "Exhibit DD") and my FEIR comment
letter to you (CSPA "Exhibit FF"), I discussed habitat requirements for steelhead
in the Canyon stretch of the River specifically and the River in general in
relation to my knowledge as a fisheries biologist and in relation to the FEIR's
APPENDIX L (comprised of APPENDICES L-1 and L-2) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
ON THE OCCURRENCE OF STEELHEAD BELOW THE DAM AND THE BIOLOGICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF REDUCED SPILLS.
In summary here of my discussions in those two letters I covered the historical
background information from APPENDIX L and elsewhere establishing the
excellence of the Salinas River for steelhead in the pre-Salinas Dam era. I also
discussed based on jnformation in the same FEIR documents how that
excellence has been diminished primarily by the construction of the Dam in
1941, to the point where it was reported in APPENDIX L-I that Nehlsen et. al. in
1991 concluded that the Salinas River steelhead was at moderate risk of
extinction. And the steelhead may be at even higher risk of extinction now
nearly a decade later.
But based on my own knowledge and information in APPENDIX L, I also
discussed in my two letters and will briefly add to it here that with adequate
flows the 14-mile Canyon stretch of the Salinas River would be excellent
steelhead habitat not just as upstream migration habitat to Canyon tributaries
and downstream. adult and juvenile steelhead migration habitat to the Ocean,
but also good spawning, nursing, and rearing habitat. I have already discussed
herein that if adequate flows are provided (1) the two small private dams in
the Canyon will not be a barrier to steelhead migration and (2) proper
scouring and flushing will take place - to create good steelhead and other
aquatic species stream system habitat (cut-banks, pools, riffles, runs, clean
gravel and other bottom types, etc.) and to regenerate riparian forests on a
continual basis.
There was a small question raised in the EIR that at least some areas of the
Canyon stretch of the River might not be conducive to steelhead survival.
However, I answered this in my two letters by indicating that such. steelhead
survival parameters as water temperature, riffles, and gravel conditions are
not only adequate for steelhead survival in the Canyon stretch of the River
now, but with adequate flows to keep fish in good 'condition such parameters in
the� stretch of the ,� t` will be very conducive to adult steelhead
Zz
spawning, steelhead egg incubation and hatching, and juvenile steelhead
rearing and migration downstream.
I further discussed that my summertime water temperature measurements
indicated temperatures well within the limits for steelhead summertime
survival. And I provided three photographs (labelled 3, 4, and 5) in Exhibit I of
my 5/5/99 letter to you (these photos are attached to my 6/2/98 FEIR comment
letter which is also part of Exhibit 1 of my 5/5/99 letter) showing areas with
good steelhead spawning, hatching and rearing gravels, riffles, and runs in
the Canyon. For the�WRCB's review I have also provided you with more photos
on Pages 4 and Pag of CSPA "Exhibit CC" showing good gravels, riffles, and
runs for steelhead spawning, incubating/hatching, and rearing in the
Canyon stretch of the Salinas River.
The point in this part of my written testimony is that with adequate flow
conditions in the River most of the 14-mile stretch of River in the Canyon will
be excellent steelhead habitat. All of the necessary conditions except adequate
flows exist in the Canyon for steelhead. Therefore, the SWRCB needs to require
the City to do a SEIR to assess the heretofore unassessed significant and
cumulatively significant adverse impacts of the Proposed Project on the
Canyon riverine ecosystem including impacts on steelhead and other aquatic
and terrestrial species including threatened and endangered species discussed
elsewhere herein, and all of which rely on this River/riparian system.
And the SWRCB needs to initiate by order or other means available to it flow
studies that will lead to information to soon correct the serious environmental
inadequacies of the LSA. And as previously discussed herein, the SWRCB needs
to convene or help convene the necessary experts and interested parties to
develope an interim flow regime much better than the LSA for keeping fish
and other species and their River habitat in good condition, until the formal
flow studies with recommended mitigations, alternatives, and conditions are
completed, reviewed, modified if necessary, and implemented.
V. Enviromental Impacts Upstream of Salinas Dam:
In my IDEIR and RDEIR comment letters, which are part of the FEIR, I devoted
more U t t� ev�erre and extensive significant adverse environmental
impact at wo°Ould' occur from the Proposed Project. The primary reason for
7at s was because the City was overlooking then as now downstream impacts but
sessing the upstream impacts that would primarily occur due to inundation
caused by raising the Dam 19', it was relatively easy at that time to comment on
the adequacy or inadequacy of their upstream EIR assessment.
It took much longer for interested individuals and parties as myself to
develope comments on the many unassessed downstream impacts, as in the
Canyon, because we commenters had to do the environmental assessing and
commenting dde to the City's negligence regarding downstream impacts.
Negligence is a proper term because the LSA the City relies on solely for
"mitigating" downstream adverse environmental impacts from past, present,
and now proposed water diversions, is basically a dead fish agreement because
fish cannot live in a visible trickle. And that visible trickle is all the LSA
requires year round, except when the River is dry. Then the LSA requires Dam
flow releases equivalent to the "dry flows" in the River upstream of the
Reservoir.
As I have had time to do more assessing of the EIR unassessed environmental
impacts downstream of the Dam, I have been able to build a downstream
environmental case against the City and its EIR, and have devoted considerably
more time on downstream impacts in my 6/2/98 FEIR comment. letter, my
5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB to preserve the CSPA Protest, and this written
testimony for the Oct. 12 SWRCB hearing. However this more recent greater
emphasis on my part to the downstream impacts does not mean that I am any
less concerned than I ever was regarding the upstream impacts of the
Proposed Project. If anything I am more concerned than ever, as I have
likewise had more time to assess in the field the devastating impacts this
Proposed Project will have on the environment in the proposed inundation
zone.
Over 70 acres of wetland and . mature multi-canopied riparian forest on nearly
3 miles of creek and River will be lost. This type of nearly unharmed mature,
valley, riverine riparian forest along a wide (up to 400 yards wide), braided
unchannelized, undeveloped, stream channel is very rare in California, as
over 200 major mountain valley and canyon bottom dams have wiped them out
in so many places. And in other places where their remnants still exist, they
have been channelized, developed along, and diked into vestiges of their past _
ecological beauty and grandeur. But here is a large intact riparian forest g ��
worth saving every part of for its many aquatic and terrestrial species that use
it. And it should be saved for people who need relatively unscathed examples of
what was and what could be again in other areas.
And the inundation zone will destroy about 2500 oaks of various species and
about 470 grey pines. Many of the oaks are large and several hundred years
old, and many of the pines are also tall and ol� There is also important wildlfe
foraging grassland and oak savannah habitat scent to the upper Salinas
River riparian forest and significant chaparral wildlife food and cover habitat
around the lake in the Proposed Project inundation zone.
In my 5/5/99 letter to the SWRCB, I provided color photos of some of the
significant riparian, oak, and pine forest areas. These photos of the 2-mile
long riparian forest along the upper Salinas River that will be destroyed by pUfSr
inundation drowning are labelled 6 through 14 in Exhibit 1 (attached to my })
6/2/99 FEIR comment letter which is also a part of Exhibit 1 of the 5/5/99
letter). And these same photos labelled 6, 7, 9, and 12 show some of the native
fish inhabited braided upper Salinas River channel as well as the multi-
storied/canopied mature willow riparian forest along the River that will be
lost to inundation.
And in Exhibit 2 of my 5/5/99 letter, color photo 5 shows the 400 yard—wide
end of this up to 60' tall mature willow riparian forest where the current
Salinas Reservoir high water line level has drowned and eliminated over time
the same type of riparian forest that would have existed in the Reservoir area
prior to construction of the Dam. This photo -also dramatically shows what will 32
be the drowning faight of the marvelous existing long and wide riparian
forest if the Proposed Project is built. Color photo 6 shows a similar tall (over
60' high in places) mature riparian forest of about 3/4 mile iong on Alamo
2�f
Creek which would likewise be destroyed by inundation drowning. And color
photos 7 and 8 show some of the thousands of oaks and hundreds of gray pines 33,
that would also be drowned around the edges of the Reservoir.
To supplement these photos showing the unmitigable damage that will be done
to these extensive mature habitats in the inundation zone around the
Reservoir, I have provided you with more photos in CSPA "Exhibit CC". 3 rf
Pages 6 and 7 show more of the mature riparian forest on the upper Salinas
River and Alamo Creek that will. be drowned. And Pages 8 and 9 of "Exhibit CC"
and CSPA "Exhibit Y" show more of the oaks and pines that will be destroyed by 35.
drowning.
In viewing and assessing this loss of ancient mature habitat it is almost
incomprehensible that for the loss of mature multi-canopied riparian forest,
ancient oak woodlands, and old tall pines, the City will likely end up planting
seedlings. That is what the great new politically correct buzzword
"restoration/enhancement" mitigation with all its developer and water
diverter "mitigation" money is all about. But why not spend more effort trying
to preserve and protect the works of nature with its ancient riparian, oak, and
pine forests?
But restore and enhance is what the City's inadequate mitigation plan is all
about. This mitigation plan is proposed on pages 2-1 to 2-3 of the City's
PROPOSAL Phase I of Services for Salinas Reservoir -Expansion Project (CSPA
"Exhibit V). But in reading this plan one can see besides planting .many
seedlings for the thousands of large, old oaks, willows, and fi9afieA� trees, the
City plans to buy bits and pieces of habitat on many sites in and on places yet
unknown. This is proposed to replace large intact oak, pine and riparian
forests around the lake and along the Salinas River and Alamo and Toro creeks.
The photos referred to above, as in CSPA Exhibits "CC" and "Y'� give some idea of
the magnitude of these large unfragmented habitat areas so critical to native
plant and wildlife survival. With such large unbroken habitat areas native
fish, wildlife, and plants have a great measure of protection from within the
vastness of the habitat. When this natural habitat is destroyed and proposed to
be replaced by many smaller restoration and enhancemenfffMat
environmental harm is done to these species and their existing natural
unfragmented habitat areas.
To give the SWRCB and others a better idea of the many ecological problems
that result from breaking up large habitat areas, or equivalently as in the case
of this Proposed Project by destroying large habitat areas and proposing to
replace them with many smaller areas, I provided . an attachment to my 6/2/98
FEIR comment letter (CSPA "Exhibit FF") titled Biological Consequences of
Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review. Please read this Review because it
sets the stage for what will replace large, unfragmented habitats that would be
lost in the inundation zone due to the Proposed Project. Many small areas of
restored and enhanced habitat areas are equivalent to habitat fragments when
compared to these large unfragmented forested habitat areas that will be
destroyed by the Proposed Project. And due to the many smaller areas far
lesser ecological value than the large unfragmented areas, the former under
any environmental/ecological measure cannot be construed as mitigation for
the latter.
As a final point on this issue, page 2-1 of CSPA "Exhibit X" indicates in .bullets
two and three that 128 acres of riparian and marsh will be restored and 3 miles
of 100-foot-wide stream corridor will be enhanced. But these areas will be
found and enhanced and restored in multiple areas according to the City's
mitigation Proposal, in order to come up with the acreages shown in these two
bullets. But as discussed above, these many small areas are not near as
ecologically valuable to wildlife as the large intact areas that now exist that
are represented by the acreages of these two bullets. For example the 3 miles of
100-foot-wide stream corridor enhancement is not ecologically close to
replacing the 3-miles of in many places several hundred yard wide braided
stream and riparian habitat. And the millions of dollars the City has indicated
in their mitigation Proposal (CSPA "Exhibit X") and various other associated
EIR documents cannot buy or replace habitat anywhere close to equivalent to
these large unfragmented forested habitats that this Proposed Project would
destroy.
And if the City wants to pursue this environmentally unreasonable project,
then the SWRCB must require that the City does a SEIR, explain where all these
bits and pieces of proposed fragmented habitat in their mitigation Proposal are
going to be and to assess how these small habitat areas are going to
ecologically replace the large unfragmented habitat areas this Proposed
Project would destroy. This must be done honestly because up to now, neither
in the certified FEIR nor in the City's post FEIR mitigation Proposal, has the
City explained where all this mitigation is going to be and how it truthfully is
going to replace what the Proposed Project would destroy.
The point is the Proposed Project must not be built, for the loss of these large
unfragmented riparian, oak, and pine forest habitats are unmitigable, as
demonstrated by the City's Proposal (CSPA "Exhibit X") to replace them with
many much smaller, ecologically unequivalent habitat areas. At some point
society must say the environmental costs far outweigh they in comparison
economic gains. And this is just such a project. The diversion of 17,949AFY to
supply the City with only 1650AFY when compared to the downstream
environmental impacts associated with more flow reductions, as impacts on
threatened steelhead, and these enormous unmitigable losses of mature
ancient oak, pine, and riparian forests is simply not a reasonable tradeoff for
society as a whole and the many species we entrust ouselves with to protect.
VI. Conclusion:
In this written testimony I have given the environmental/ecological reasons
and justifications for requesting that the SWRCB (1) require that the City do a
Supplemental EIR for heretofore unassessed impacts upstream and downstream
of the Dam, (2) initiate right away flow studies to determine and set into action
ecologically adequate flows to replace the "Live Stream Agreement" in order to
keep fish, as steelhead, and other species and their Salinas River/riparian
habitat in good condition, (3) issue an interim order within 30 days of the
hearing date requiring the permittees to release additional flows from the
Salinas .Reservoir based on the evidence presented at this hearing, and (4)
deny the City's request for an extension of time to complete construction of the
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project and the beneficial use of the unused
portion of the water referred to in Permit 5882.
NG _. _ AGENDA
WSINSHEIMER, SCHIEBEL I_
WARREN A.SINSHEMER III EN OPPIrT.
oo �
ROBERT F,SCHIERUMUT BAGGETT & TANGEMAN - Robles,Vine Saw
" ^OBDJ BAGGEIT Paso Robles,California 93446
'W J.TANGEMAN (805)238-2300
.IN P.MOROSKI Fax(805)238-2322
—••'IDA.Jl1HNKE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
STEVEN J.ADAMSKI
THOMAS D.GREEN ATTORNEYS AT LAW DIRECT ALL MAIL TO:
M.suLANNE FRYER 1010 Peach Street P.O.Box 31
THOMAS J.MADDEN m
STEVEN AL CHANLEY SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93401 San Luis Obispo,Califomia 93406
THOMAS F.LEBENS• (805)541-2800
JOHN ED.NICHOLSON
ADAM M.DANER" Fax(805)541-2802 CLQ.
JOSEPH B.ADAMS
THOMAS D.WAYLE ""
RFIINA BAMON RECEIVED
gc„di iovember 9, 2000
•• Ad i1edr,W1fim,,,eNew& &COUNCIL IFIRE
Adm11ed1n0,egmO,Jy. NOV 0 4 2000 GKAO
&ACAO FSLO CITY COUNCIL [� L�ER oRifi 0 PW IR
Fo e+crgr Clty COunCll �!@!G&%JLT�M
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street Et. I-�endt�so•�
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
Objection of Atascadero Mutual Water Company
Dear Council Members:
This law firm represents the Atascadero Mutual Water Company("AMWC"). On behalf of
AMWC,we object to the proposed action to adopt a resolution(i) approving the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project;(ii)adopting the California Environmental Quality Act findings;(iii)approving
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan(including Statement of Overriding Considerations);
and(iv)directing City staff to file a Notice of Determination. The grounds for our objection are set
forth below.
Initially, it should be noted that the City Council is incapable of exercising its unbiased
discretion in consideration of this matter if in fact it must either approve the proposed resolution and
file a notice of determination by November 13, 2000 or forfeit the City's claimed right to an
additional annual diversion of 1,650 acre feet of water. On or about October 19, 2000, the State
Water Resources Control Board ("SWRCB') issued Order WR 2000-13 whereby the SWRCB
approved the City's request for a time extension to complete beneficial use of water and construction
of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Proj ect on the express condition that the City approve the proj ect
and filea notice of determination within 25 days after the issuance of Order WR 2000-13. If the .
notice of determination is not filed within that time(November 13), the time extension is deemed
denied.
The SWRCB action apparently leaves the City.Council with no viable alternatives. They
must approve the project or risk forever losing claimed water rights. Given this state of affairs, it
is inconceivable that the City Council will be capable of exercising its discretion to perform an
unbiased analysis of the project and the adequacy of current CEQA review. It is a foregone
conclusion that the City Council will take the action necessary to secure the time extension as
mandated by SWRCB.
r
City of San Luis Obispo
November 9, 2000
Page 2
The City Council,under the present circumstances,cannot perform its duty to fully and fairly
consider all issues before taking its actions. It is committed to one course of action and cannot
reasonably be expected to veer from that course. Under analogous circumstances, the California
Court of Appeal set aside the action of a local legislative body adopting a resolution of necessity
because the agency hearing adopting the resolution was a "sham" and a merely "rubber stamped
predetermined result." [Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Park vs. Norm's Slauson
(1986) 173 Cal. App 1121, 1127] We submit that the November 9 hearing is likewise a sham and
that the City Council will merely "rubber stamp" a "predetermined result". If this happens, the
decision in Redevelopment Agency vs.Norm's Slauson will require a court to ultimately set aside the
City Council approval of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project.'
The City Council's apparent inability to exercise its discretion is of particular concern
because it must consider the adequacy of the final environmental impact report ("EIR") and the
adoption of a statement of overriding considerations authorizing the project despite admitted Class
I impacts. AMWC has previously submitted comments detailing the inadequacies of the draft and
final EIR. Those comments are attached hereto and incorporated as part of the objection to the
proposed action. Among the primary concerns is the failure of the EIR to conduct a meaningful
analysis of the effect of the project on downstream recharge. Lacking that analysis,the EIR cannot
possibly provide an adequate discussion of the physical impacts of the project. AMWC intends to
present expert testimony at the November 9 hearing to more fully explain this issue. We are
confident that this testimony would normally cause the City Council to find the EIR inadequate and
require further analysis. It does not appear that such an action, although legally required, is an
option the City Council will consider.
Moreover,a serious environmental concern regarding seismic safety has been raised which
requires further environmental review before the project can be approved. In fact,in its own staff
report,the City admits that(i)a preliminary study conducted by Woodward-Clyde has determined
that the dam,when expanded, "would not meet DSOD standards;" (ii) if the preliminary report is
accurate a redesign of the project will be necessary before expansion; (iii)further investigation and
analysis of the seismic issues is necessary; and (iv) "If future studies reveal that the dam must be
strengthened, supplemental environmental review will likely be necessary..." Given these
admissions by the City, it is clear that the City Council cannot approve the Project unless and until
an adequate supplemental environmental impact report is prepared and adopted.
The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requires the preparation of a
supplement environmental impact report when either:
'Nothing in this letter should be construed as a challenge to the integrity or commitment
of the San Luis Obispo City Council. Rather, it is our intention to point out the unfortunate
circumstances that prevent the City Council from carrying out its legal obligation to fully and
fairly consider the issues before it.
City of San Luis Obispo
November 9, 2000
Page 3
(1) new information,which was not known and could not have been known at the time
the environmental impact report was certified as complete information becomes
available.
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project
is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact
report; or
(3) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of
the EIR. (Public Resources Code Section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines 15162)
The October 20, 2000 letter from counsel for the City of Paso Robles to the City Council
provides an excellent analysis of the necessity for a supplemental EIR based upon the Woodward
Clyde seismic report. We incorporate that letter into our objection to the project.
.Further,the City's approval ofthe Project must,of necessity,include further seismic analysis
which will likely have a material impact on the design of the project. The project to be approved is
simply not safe. This reliance on future studies to both design and to mitigate the Project impacts
is a direct violation of CEQA. [Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal. App. 3d 296;
Oro Fino Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990)225 Cal.App.3d 872, 884-885.] The
seismic study must be completed and evaluated as part of the EIR prior to Project approvaL
It is clear that the City is not in a position to approve this Project unless and until further
environmental analysis is performed. It is equally clear that,despite these statutory deficiencies,the
City Council will almost certainly approve the Project in order to avoid the possible loss of its time
extension. We urge the City Council to follow the law and consider the approval of the Project only
after full, complete and meaningful environmental review.
Very truly yours,
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT,
BAGGETT &TANGEMAN
THOMAS D. GREEN
TDG:tlg
G:\GENERAL\LTRVIvIWC12CityCouncd-I 109.wpd
Attachments
cc: Jeffrey G. Jorgensen
�ARRENASL+sI�II.Biim SiNSHEIMER,SCHIEBELHUT&BAGGEI I'
STREET ADDRESS
T C A PROFESSIONAL OORPORATION
C ROBIN BAGGErr 1010 PEACH STREET
MARTIN T.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THOMAS M DGOGAN FACSII.ffiE
MARTIN P.MORGSIO POSTOFFICE BOX 31 805-541-2802
DAVID A RII KE SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 934060031
STEVEN L ADAMSIG
THOMAS D.GREEN 805-541-28W
M.SUZANNE FRYER
THOMAS L MADDEN m CLIENT: 0293001
SUSAN S.WAAG
mall-A ROSSETTI
STEVEN M.CHANTEY
HUTICIN
RY"�ANs eA July 24, 1997
Mr.Glen Matteson HAND-DELIVERED
Associate Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Comments to Revised Draft EIR for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion
Dear Mr.Matteson:
This office represents Atascadero Mutual Water Company ("AMWC"). The following are
AMWC's comments to the discussion of potential downstream flow reductions in the Revised Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project dated May 1997
("Revised Draft EIR'). AMWC reserves the right to supplement, withdraw, or limit any of the
comments set forth in this letter.
Initially, we reiterate that AMWC remains committed to full development and utilization of
all water available to the County of San Luis Obispo for its highest and best use. Its highest priority,
however,remains the protection of the rights of its water users to a constant and adequate water supply
consistent with the full set of water rights held by AMWC.
As set forth in more detail herein, the discussion of potential downstream flow reductions
contained in the Revised Draft EIR is seriously deficient in several respects including the following:
(a) it fails to accurately define the subject Project and its purpose; (b) it fails to adequately consider
project alternatives; (c)it fails to adequately identify or analyze possible mitigation measures;and(d)
it fails to accurately and objectively identify and analyze potential downstream impacts.
CEQA requires that the City conduct an unbiased and impartial review of these issues. CEQA
requires a public agency to deny or limit approval of a project with significant adverse effects when
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures can substantially lessen such effects. To do so,the public
agency must assure itself that the information contained in its review process is objective and unbiased.
Unfortunately,it appears that the analysis of the alternatives,mitigation measures and impacts
contained in the review was intentionally slanted to provide the desired result, e.g., no feasible
alternative, no feasible mitigation measure and no significant impact As such, information and
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 2
analysis critical to understanding the full impact of this project is not included in the Revised Draft
EIR
The City has repeatedly stated its desire to work with North County residents to address their
concerns and to develop water resources cooperatively. Certification of the Revised Draft EIR in its
current form would directly contradict this stated desire.
1. Atascadero Mutual Water Company.
AMWC is a private company which provides water to its shareholders residing in and around
the City of Atascadero. AMWC's existence dates back to 1913,when Edward Lewis purchased the
23,000 acre Henry Ranch which eventually became the Colony of Atascadero. In 1914, Lewis
transferred all of the Henry Ranch's then existing water rights—including appropriative, riparian and
overlying—to AMWC,a newly formed mutual water company.
Water supplied by AMWC is used for residential and commercial uses including government,
schools and hospitals within its service area Presently,AMWC provides water to over 25,000 North
County residents.
AMWC depends entirely upon shallow and deep ground water resources in the vicinity of the
Salinas River to supply its customers. Atascadero is located in the Atascadero Sub-basin which is
particularly dependent on recharge from the Salinas River,rather than being in the larger Paso Robles
ground water basin which is influenced by recharge from other main tributaries.
Prior to 1970, AMWC's sole source of water was the Salinas River. Currently, AMWC
operates 7 wells ("shallow wells')which draw water from the underflow of the Salinas River. Since
1970,AMWC has also relied on groundwater withdrawn from the Atascadero Sub-basin to supylement
its water supply. Currently, AMWC operates 7 wells ("deep wells') which draw water from the
Atascadero Sub-basin.
AMWC holds at least three forms of water rights related to the Salinas River. First,as a result
of the 1914 transfer noted above,it holds on behalf of its shareholders a riparian right to the beneficial
use of water from the Salinas River on lands within its service area Second, it holds pre-1914
appropriative rights to a portion of the Salinas River. Third, it has license to appropriate at least 3372
acre feet a year from the Salinas River. This last appropriation has a priority date of January 13, 1916.
AMWC currently has no significant source of water other than the Salinas River and the
Atascadero Sub-Basin.
2. Initial Draft EIR.
The initial Draft EIR was released in November 1993. AMWC submitted written comments
in a letter dated January 3, 1994,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"A". AMWC criticized
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 3
the initial Draft EIR because it: (1) failed to analyze the impact of stream flow reductions from the
dam to Paso Robles; (2) failed to discuss or analyze the potential effect of reduced stream flows on
downstream riparian rights;(3) failed to identify and address all feasible mitigation measures;and(4)
failed to consider all project alternatives. AMWC incorporates by reference the comments contained
in Exhibit A as applicable and responsive to the Revised Draft EIR.
Additional comments were submitted in a letter dated March 11, 1994, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Exhibit"B". AMWC noted in this letter that the proposed expansion project could
impact the recharge of downstream shallow and deep aquifers by reducing the "scouring" of stream
sediments during strong flows and by decreasing the amount of time that there is"high water"within
the recharge areas along the Salinas River corridor. AMWC incorporates by reference the comments
contained in Exhibit B as applicable and responsive to the Revised Draft EIR
AMWC also solicited comments from three hydrologists: (1)Tim Cleath,(2) Rick Hoffman;
and (3) Donald Weaver. Written comments received from each of these gentlemen were forwarded
to the City. Attached hereto as Exhibit"C"and"D"respectively are Mr. Cleath's letters of December
31, 1993 and February 9, 1994 discussing some of his concerns related to the project. Attached as
Exhibit"E" is Mr. Hoffman's letter of February 8, 1994 addressing some of his concerns. Attached
as Exhibit"F" is Mr. Weaver's letter of February 9, 1994 addressing some of his concerns. AMWC
incorporates by reference the comments contained in these letters as applicable and responsive to the
Revised Draft EIR-
On May 2, 1994, the City—through its attorney Scott Slater—provided AMWC with a written
response to its March 11, 1994 letter. A copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit"G". Mr. Slater
stated that the City would address AMWC's concerns "in detail in its final EIR." In fact,no final EIR
was issued. Mr. Slater stated,without any support,that"scouring effects from flood flows would be
insignificant in terms of recharge to the groundwater basin"' As to flow reductions,Mr.Slater stated—
again without support—that "a reduction in the duration of high water conditions will have no
significant effect on recharge so long as the Live Stream Agreement is in effect......2
Thereafter, the City decided to withdraw the initial Draft EIR. AMWC made available all of
its records relating to the Salinas River, including all daily and monthly data it had on its shallow and
deep wells.AMWC personnel have also been available to the City.
'As discussed herein,the Revised Draft EIR fails to consider or analyze whether the expansion
would retard the scouring effect identified in the March 11, 1994 letter.
2 A discussed herein, the Revised Draft EIR states that a higher flow(e.g., more than just a
"live stream')will result in faster recharge of the underground aquifers. Revised Draft EK p. 34-23.
Mr.Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 4
3. Revised Draft EIR
AMWC has again asked Mr. Cleath to comment on the analysis contained in the Revised Draft
EIR. Some of Mr. Cleath's initial comments on the Revised Draft EIR are contained in his letter of
July 17, 1997, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit"H". AMWC incorporates by reference
the comments contained in these letters as applicable and responsive to the Revised Draft EIR-
Additional
IRAdditional comments are set forth below.
a. Inadequate Project Description.
The Revised Draft EIR defines the project as the expansion of the Salinas Reservoir. Atone
point, the Revised Draft EIR defines the `purpose" of the Project as securing "additional water
supplies to help meet the City's projected water demand deficit. Elsewhere,however,it defines the
purpose more narrowly as providing the City with 1650 AFY of additional water supplies on a safe
annual basis. The failure to clearly and properly define the project and its purpose violates CEQA.
The difference between these two Project definitions is critical. If the purpose is defined as
securing additional water to meet a future estimated shortfall, it would obviously be incumbent on
the City to identify and analyze known alternative sources for such water. However, by narrowly
(and incorrectly)defining the purpose of the project as providing the City with 1650 AFY—and no
less—from only one source,the City avoids the responsibility of engaging in such an analysis.
Proper definition of the project and its purpose is critical to complying with CEQA. As one
court has stated,"Responsibility for a project cannot be avoided by limiting the title or description
of a project." Rural Land Owners Assoc. v. Lodi City Council (3rd Dis. 1983) 143 Cal.App.3d
1012, 1025. Here, the only proper description is securing additional water to meet the City's
projected firture need. This is consistent with the City's General Plan which requires that-the City
obtain additional water from multiple sources. The qualifier that the project being studied must
secure 1650 AFY is not supported by the General Plan,masks the real purpose of the project and
prevents a full,fair and objective consideration of the resulting environmental impacts.
How the project and its purpose are defined is even more critical in light of the City's recent
downward revision of its projected water needs. At the time of the initial Draft EIR, the City
projected it needed 6265 AFY more a year by the year 2015. Since that time,the City has concluded
that it needs only 3861 AFY more by the year 2022. This substantial reduction in projected need
makes it even more likely that some combination of sources other than the dam expansion(or in
conjunction with a modified expansion) could be readily utilized to fully satisfy the City's needs.
The Revised Draft EIR acknowledges that the Naciemento Project alone could fully satisfy all of
its needs.
Selection of a source or set of sources other than the described Project would obviously have
dramatically different environmental impacts. It is quite likely that a set of sources could be
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 5
developed at less expense and with fewer detrimental impacts. However,because the Revised Draft
EIR incorrectly defines the Project,no information is provided with which the City and the public
can rely on to make a proper decision.
The Revised Draft EIR needs to be rewritten to clearly state that the purpose of the Project
is to increase the City's future water supply.
b. Failure to Adequately Consider Alternatives.
Under CEQA, the required discussion of alternatives must focus on alternatives which are
"capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more
costly." CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d)(1). The EIR must ensure that all reasonable alternatives
are thoroughly assessed by the responsible parties.
At the time of the initial draft EIR,the City projected a water supply deficit of 6265 AFY by
the year 2015. This included a 2000 AFY reliability reserve. The proposed project would provide
approximately 1650 AFY of additional water or about 25 %of this projected deficit.
The initial Draft EIR did not consider the following projects as alternatives because they were
already being pursued by the City to"help"offset this projected deficit The projects not considered
include:Naciemento-Reservoir Water Supply Project;groundwater increased wastewater reclamation;
continued conservation; and periodic cloud seeding. The only alternatives actually considered were
Seawater Desalination and Transfers from the Salinas Reservoir to the Whale Rock Reservoir.
Since the initial Draft EIR,the City revised downward its projected need for additional water.
As noted in the Revised Draft EIR, the City now concludes it needs only an additional 3,861_AFY
(including the 2000 AFY reserve)by the year 2022. Despite this substantial reduction,the Revised
Draft EIR refiises to consider as possible alternatives (either separately or conjunctively):groundwater,
wastewater reclamation, continued conservation or cloud seeding. The Revised Draft EIR does note
that all of the City's projected deficit could be satisfied by the Naciemento Reservoir Water Supply
Project Further, the Revised Draft EIR notes that the dam expansion will not be needed if the
Naciemento Project proceeds.
Despite this conclusion, the Revised Draft EIR fails to adequately analyze or consider the
Naciemento Water Supply Project—individually or in conjunction with other possible sources—as a
possible alterative project Instead,it notes that the feasibility of the Naciemento project is"currently
still being assessed...." According to the Revised Draft EIR,the findings in the forthcoming EIR on
the Naciemento project will be "considered in the Final EIR.for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion
Project"
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 6
It is impossible to assess and comment on the potential environmental impacts of the expansion
project without at least an initial assessment of the Naciemento project Naciemento water may fully
meet the projected needs of the City. Alternatively, imported Naciemento"water could be used to
partially or filly mitigate any potential reduction in downstream flows caused by the expansion
project Importation of such water may also have an impact on operation of the Live Stream
Agreement Further,effected entities may be able to"trade"water held back by the Salinas dam for
Naciemento water.
The Revised Draft EIR should also not remove from consideration other potential sources of
water, merely because the City is already pursuing or counting on these sources to offset the alleged
future deficit. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the City's projected deficit has been
substantially reduced. In essence, the City had defined the project goal as development of a single
source of 1650 AFY. This is simply not proper,particularly in light of the City's recent reduction of
its projected deficit and the substantial time remaining before this deficit becomes an issue.
The EIR should address how much water these other projects might produce. The EIR should
also address whether these projects can be combined with Naciemento or a reduced dam expansion
(e.g.,a smaller set of gates)to provide the City with the water it believes it needs.
Finally, the Revised Draft EIR makes no mention of State Water as a possible alternative in
conjunction with one or more of the above mentioned sources. AMWC understands that the County
and other governmental entities are willing to sell or transfer excess State Water. The Revised Draft
EIR should consider this possible alternative.
AMWC and others believe that all these potential alternatives need to be planned and studied
together to effect the"greatest good"including mm' h' n .ing environmental impacts. However,the City
is effectively stifling both effective analysis and public comment by refusing to discuss these
alternatives—separately or conjunctively—in any meaningful manner. These defects are particularly
inexplicable in light of the recent substantial reduction in the projected deficit
AMWC requests that the City produce a new draft EIR which filly addresses all of the relevant
sources of water available to the City. At a minimum,the City should allow further comment on the
Revised Draft EIR once the Naciemento EIR is circulated.
c. Failure to identify and discuss reasonable mitigation measures.
For purposes of CEQA,the proposed project is the expansion of the Salinas Dam. The purpose
of the expansion is to increase the City's supply of water. It is not proper under CEQA to narrowly
define the project as the expansion of the dam and acquisition of 1650 AFY and then reject out-of-
hand any mitigation that might limit the City's ability to fully reach this goal every year.
Unfortunately, this is precisely what both the initial Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR
conclude that "downstream flow-related effects are not considered to be feasibly mitigable since
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 7
releasing more water downstream would not allow the project's goals to be met" This reasoning,
which rejects out-of-hand anything less than fall build out and operation in accordance with the project
definition, falls far short of the analysis required by CEQA. Moreover, it assumes, without analysis,
that any conceivable mitigating measure would: (1) require a release of water and (2) would prevent
the City from obtaining an additional 1650 AFY every year.
The EIR should fully analyze and discuss all potential mitigation measures. Possible
mitigation measures include: (a) allowance of periodic "flood stage" runoff cycles; (b) controlled
releases timed to offset adverse impacts; (c) construction of an emergency flow water pipeline; (d)
storage of only a portion of the maximum stream flows in any one year,(e)conjunctive use of the dam
and the Naciemento Project waters; (f) conjunctive use of dam and other sources (including those
identified herein); and (g) strengthening the enforcement mechanism contained in the Live Stream
Agreement.
d. Failure to Adequately Identify and Assess Downstream Impacts.
1. Downstream Flows.
The Revised Draft EIR attempts to set forth the impact of the project on downstream flows.
The analysis is flawed for several reasons including the following:
_ a) 10.000 AFY Assumption. The Revised Draft EIR uses a yield
value of 10,000 AFY for both its existing and raised dam scenarios. It is not reasonable to assume the
City will withdraw the same amount of water in both scenarios. The reservoir's current safe annual
yield is estimated at 4,800 acre-feet The spreadsheet calculation assumes the City would knowingly
overdraft the reservoir at a greater rate under existing condition than under the raised dam conditions.
This effectively changes the operational management of the dam between the two scenarios.
Moreover,the existing facilities cannot physically convey 10,000 AFY.
b) Results Reported Annually. The spreadsheet model results are
reported on an annual basis. Both the spreadsheet and data sets are available on a monthly basis.
Reduced flows on water supply include both long-term and short-term impacts. Averaging such
impacts annually does not address short-term impacts. At a minimum,the Revised Draft EIR should
perform a monthly analysis of those periods identified as having the greatest potentially significant
impacts(e.g., 1992-1994).
c) Methodology Used to Calculate Flow. The Revised Draft EIR
relied entirely on a methodology adopted by the Morro Group to estimate the flow at Atascadero. Mr.
Cleath has concluded that the estimates resulting from the Morro Group's analysis are questionable.
He believes more accurate estimates of flow can be made by relying on information not available or
not used by the Morro Group, including reservoir inflow data and gaged records for Santa Margarita
Creek,Trout Creek and Yerba Buena Creek.
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 8
d) Methodology Used to Calculate Decrease in Flow. The
spreadsheet concludes that the proposed project would result in an average decrease in downstream
.flow("Average Project Impact')at the base of the dam of 6.45%, 3.52%at Atascadero and 1.24% at
Paso Robles. For any one year,the Project Impact(%)was calculated by dividing the Project Impact
(AF) by the Historic Flow Below Dam(AF). However,to obtain these Average Project Impacts, the
Revised Draft EIR averages the column of annual impacts rather than divide the Average Project
Impact(AF)by the Average Historic Flow Below Dam(AF). Using a consistent methodology would
result in average decrease in downstream flow of 11.2% at the base of the dam, 6.6% at Atascadero
and 2.6%at Paso Robles.
e) Carry-over Impact. As with well levels, discussed infi-a. the
Revised Draft EIR makes no effort to analyze whether a reduced flow in one year will have a"carry-
over"effect in any of the following years.
f) Margin of Error. As with well levels, discussed infra, the
Revised Draft EIR fails to state whether any of the estimated flows are subject to a meaningful margin
of error.
2. Impact on Well Levels.
The last step performed in the impacts assessment for water resources was a calculation of the
estimated amount of water level decline in two AMWC water supply wells. The Revised Draft EIR
does not analyze impacts below Atascadero because it concludes that the impact on these two wells
is "minimal." Thus, it is critical to the report that the impact in the Atascadero area is accurately
assessed. Unfortunately,it was not
a) Well No. 1 is Atypical. The Revised Draft EIR assumes
AMWC's Well No. I is a typical shallow well for purposes of analyzing shallow well level impacts.
In fact, Well No. 1 is downstream from AMWC's other shallow wells and only 150 feet from
Atascadero Creek. Historically, Atascadero Creek has a surface flow before the Salinas River and
Well No. 1 reacts to that flow.
b) Well No. 7. Well No. 7 is assumed to be a typical deep well.
However, it is below the confluence of the Atascadero Creek. Moreover, no explanation is given as
to why this well is deemed "typical." The EIR consultants were given all AMWC well logs to
evaluate. The Revised Draft EIR should explain why Well No. 7 is the best deep well to analyze.
c) Use of Annual Avemges.The Depth to Water figures provided
for both wells are annual averages. Timing of water flows, demand and supplies are critical to
AMWC. Of particular importance to.AMWC is monthly and seasonal variations in well levels.
Annual averages simply do not address these issues. In fact, they may mask a serious monthly or
seasonal impact. In order to evaluate a worst case scenario, it is essential that monthly, or at least
seasonal variations,be evaluated.
Mr.Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 9
The City should have sufficient data to make such an analysis. AMWC has kept detailed
historical records on such variations. All of this data was made available to the City's consultants.
d) Cann-over Impacts.No effort is made to ascertain the carry-over
impact of the proposed expansion on water levels. Unanswered is how long an adverse impact in one
year will cant'over into future months,seasons or years.
e) Adjustments for Changes in Use.The Revised Draft EIR relies
entirely on historical data to ascertain impact No adjustments are made for possible changes in the
future concerning water use, population growth and other developments that may effect demands on
the Salinas River downstream of the dam.
f) Worst Case Scenario. The review claims that the maximum
impact estimates are based on a worst case scenario in 1993, following many years of drought It
would appear, however, that the maximum impact on downstream users would more likely be a
relatively high flow year such as 1993 between several low flow years. In this scenario, downstream
users may not be able to take advantage in subsequent low flow years of the carryover of a high flow
year like 1993.
As to establishing the historical worst case scenario, the initial Draft EIR discussed
flows back to the mid40's. The Revised Draft EIR analysis stops in 1972. In ascertaining worst case
scenarios for purpose of waxer use,most recent studies have gone back to the 30's or even earlier. The
EIR should review all available historical data to determine if 1993 actually presents the historical
worst case scenario.
g) Impact not Actually Analyzed. No effort is made to correlate
the estimated drop in well levels to actualproduction by AMWC. No effort is made to calculate
impact on production,time of production or cost of production. For example,no consideration is given
to the fact that several of AMWC's shallow wells have only 5 to 6 feet of perforated production and
that they are the first to be tumed off when water levels are low.
h) Scouting Effect High flows "scour" the riverbed enhancing
percolation. In comments to the prior Draft EIR,AMWC asked that the City analyze what impact the
expansion would have on this phenomena. The Revised Draft EIR fails to address this issue.
i) Margin of Error. The Revised Draft EIR fails to fully explain
whether any of the estimated well levels are subject to a significant margin of en-or. See also the
comments contained in the Tim Cleath's letter of July 17, 1997.
3. Water Rights.
The Revised Draft EIR fails to accurately,completely and impartially discuss the water rights
held by downstream water users. There is no discussion of riparian rights held by actual and potential
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 10
downstream water users,'including AMWC. There is no recognition given to the fact that whatever
water rights the City may hold are inferior to earlier pre-1914 and appropriative rights, riparian rights
and overlying rights.
There is no discussion of possible challenges to the City's water rights. The City has never
used the Rill amount of its appropriation raising at least the possibility that its right to increased storage
has been waived or abandoned.
The Revised Draft EIR assumes without discussion that neither the State nor an effected party
will seek to have the Live Stream Agreement modified. The City is required to release from the
reservoir an amount of water necessary to meet the rights of all entities with prior vested rights. "Until
Rather ordered"it is assumed that"Live Stream"discharges meet this obligation. However, increasing
use of downstream prior rights combined with the proposed expansion, may call in to question the
validity of this assumption. The Revised Draft EIR states that requiring any discharge beyond that
necessary to a live stream will defeat the purpose of the project. In that case, the Revised Draft EIR
should discuss the possibility that the Live Stream Agreement may be altered in the future to protect
the rights of existing and potential downstream users. See Comments contained in Donald Weaver's
letter of February 9, 1994 attached hereto.
Even if the Live Stream Agreement is not altered, it is likely that increasing demands will be
placed on the Salinas River by downstream users. Such an increase may come as a result of a variety
of factors. One would be increased population. Another would be more intensive use of water for
agriculture. Increased flows may also be required to accommodate unforeseen environmental issues.
The realistic possibility of increased use also calls into question the viability of the project.
As noted, the Revised Drift EIR states that requiring any additional discharge for mitigation would
defeat the whole project. As such, the City must analyze whether additional discharges reasonably
called for by the Live Stream Agreement will also,defeat the project
4. Flood Risk.
As to the potential risk of flooding from dam or gate failure, AMWC notes that the
project assumes the dam will be transferred from the Federal Government to the County of San Luis
Obispo. Whatever the risk of flooding,if flooding does occur,the County or some as of yet undefined
portion of the County will bear the risk rather than the federal government The Revised Draft EIR
should address the financial ability of the County or this portion of the County to repair any damage
resulting from possible flooding.
AMWC remains willing to work with the City and its consultants to provide a full analysis of
the project's potential impacts, alternatives and mitigation measures. These issues must be fully
considered to ensure that the City makes an informed decision and that the public is aware of the pros
and cons on which they base any decision. As presently drafted, the Revised Draft EIR does not
Mr. Glen Matteson
July 24, 1997
Page 11
provide the City with acciirate, objective information. AMWC requests that the City's consultants
revise the EIR to address the concerns set forth in this letter.
Sincerely yours,
SINSHE R, SCH HUT&BAGGETT
C 1
STEVE J.AD SKI
SJA:dns
gAl&,amwc\26mattes.724
cc: Ken Weathers, Atascadero Mutual Water Company
WARREN A.5049 IMEK 111 SINSHEIMER. SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
WeERT K.SCHIFbE1HUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`BIN RAGGETT STREET ADDRESS
IN I.TANGEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
AAS M.DUGGAN
MARTIN P.MOROSKI POST OFFICE BOX 31 FACSIMILE
DAVID A.IUHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406-0031 805.541-2802
STEVEN I.ADAMSKI
THOMAS D.GREEN 805.541.2800
M.SUZANNE FRYER
CYNTHIA RA0293015
W ARTHUR GRAHAM CLIENT
SUSAN 5.WAAG
ROY L OLDEN
THOMAS L MADDEN III
CHRIS A.CARR
MARIA L HUTKIN
January 3, 1994
City of San Luis Obispo HAND-DELIVERED
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Attention: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Re: Salinas Reservoir Expansion/Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Matteson:
This firm has been retained by the Atascadero Mutual Water Company ("?.1%1WC")
to-review and, if appropriate, comment upon the draft environmental impact report for the
Salinas Reservoir Expansion ("DEIR"). We were assisted in our review of the DEIR by
Timothy S. Cleath of Cleath and Associates. Based upon our review, we have the following
comments:
General Comments
Our primary concern in reviewing. the DEIR was the inevitable reduction in
downstream flows along the Salinas River and the potential impacts of that reduction on the
environment and those holding downstream water rights. The DEIR fails to address the
potential impacts on that portion of the Salinas River between Salinas Reservoir and the City
of Paso Robles. Rather, the limited analysis of the DEIR focuses on impacts beginning at
the City of Paso Robles and beyond. Based upon the assumption in the DEIR that the impact
of flow reduction is directly related to the distance of the measurement point from the Dam,
it is imperative that the DEIR measure and analyze the impact of stream flow reductions on
those points nearest the Dam. The DEIR, in failing to provide this measurement and
analysis, falls short of discussing all relevant information and environmental impacts as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA").
EXHIBIT A
City of San Luis Obispo
January 3, 1994
Page 2
AMWC is particularly interested in an accurate and complete analysis of the reduction
in downstream flows because it depends upon shallow and deep ground water resources in
the vicinity of the Salinas River for its supply. Those aquifers depend on recharge from the
Salinas River to replenish ground water in storage, which is-ultimately used by AMWC.
Atascadero is located in the western portion of the Paso Robles ground water basin,
identified as "Atascadero Sub-Basin" in the Morro Group's 1991 report, "Long Term
Viability of Water Supply, City of Atascadero", which is particularly dependent on recharge
from the Salinas River, rather than being in the broader portion of the basin between Paso
Robles and Shandon, which is influenced by recharge from other main tributaries (the
Estrella and Huerhuero Creek systems). The Atascadero portion of the ground water basin
refills from recharge during most wet seasons (The Morro Group report). Any reduction of
flow which would otherwise contribute to recharge in the vicinity of the AMWC wells, must
be evaluated and determined to be significant or insignificant.
The DEIR is also inadequate because it fails to consider and discuss the potential
effect of the reduction in flows on downstream riparian rights and how the environmental
impacts resulting from any effect on the riparian rights. For example, if significant riparian
rights are -effected, will those users seek to offset the loss by increased ground water
withdrawals or will loss of riparian water rights result in a change in current land use for
affected riparian lands? The DEIR must consider these issues in order to fully evaluate all
impacts of the project..
The DEIR also fails to adequately address all feasible mitigation measures. In
particular, the use of the increased storage capacity to provide water releases over and above
those required by the Live Stream Agreement should be considered as a potential mitigation
measure. The DEIR, however, provides no analysis of this potential mitigation measure.
The reason given for this failure to provide analysis is that it would defeat the goals of the
project. This reasoning, which rejects out-of-hand anything less than full buildout in
accordance with the project definition, falls far short of the analysis required by CEQA.
This potential.mitigation measure should be fully analyzed and discussed in the DEIR.
Finally, the DEIR rejects the state water project as an alternative because the City's
electorate has voted to forego participation. Failing to consider a project alternative merely
because the project proponent does not prefer the alternative violates the analysis required
by CEQA. All viable project alternatives must be considered regardless of whether or not
they are preferred by the proponent. Even assuming that the City is precluded from
contracting for water directly with the State, which is not established in the DEIR, it may
be able to indirectly acquire water through contracting parties.
City of San Luis Obispo
January 3, 1994
Page 3
Specific Comments
PAGE PARAGRAPH COMMENT
ES-5 1 a) Reduced flow percentages at Atascadero should be
estimated based on stream flow estimates in previous
reports (The Morro Group, 1991). As noted in the
general comments, the reduced annual flow percentage
is probably much higher at Atascadero than the
downstream localities cited.
b) The DEIR should assess the incremental effect of the
project assuming existing "cumulative effects". If the
project increases the potential for an overdraft of the
ground water basin, then this should be considered a
significant impact.
3-78 3 This stream flow simulation should evaluate the impacts
at Atascadero. See The Morro Group, 1991 for
estimated historic annual stream flow totals for
Atascadero.
3-88 2 The maximum incremental annual flow reduction at
Atascadero should be estimated.
3-88 3 The peak monthly flow reduction at Atascadero should
be estimated. The monthly flow reduction estimates are
pertinent to the impact of the proposed project on water
recharge.
3-90 2 This paragraph Purports to comprise the entire analysis
of ground water recharge impacts but does not address
the potential impact that reducing stream flow would
have on ground water recharge in Atascadero. This
should be addressed.
3-94 2 Mitigation measures directly related to the impacts of the
proposed project on AMWC sources should be identified
and discussed.
City of San Luis Obispo
January 3, 1994
Page 4
PAGE PARAGRAPH COMMENT
3-95 1 The conclusion that "impacts related to reduced ground
water recharge are not expected to be significant" should
not be made unless an analysis of the impact on the
Atascadero area is performed and the conclusion is
consistent with that analysis.
3-240 5 The cumulative impact of the project related to the
incremental reduction in ground water recharge.resulting
from this project is not discussed in this section despite
the fact that this cumulative impact is referenced in other
sections of the DEIR.
5-1&2 5&1 The discussion of reduced downstream flow should
include those areas that exhibit the greatest reduced
downstream flow (e.g., downstream of the dam to
Atascadero).
See the comment above regarding the inadequacy of the
"cumulative effects" discussion of the DE1R
AMWC is available to discuss these commentswith the City or a representative of
Woodward-Clyde or to provide additional information or clarification.
Very truly yours,
SINSHERVIER, SCHIEBELHUT &BAGGETT
THOMAS D. GREEN
TDG/tlg
g:\IUkAMWG17QLySLA.103
cc: Kenneth Weathers, AMWC
Timothy S. Cleath, Cleath & Associates
WARREN A SINSHEIMFA III SINSHEIMER. SCHIEBELHUT BAGGETT
ROBERT IL SC HIEBELHUT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
K '—VN BAGGETT STREET ADDRESS
I 11.TANCEMAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1010 PEACH STREET
1 S M.DUGGAN
Mti—aN P.M ei= POST OFFICE ROX 31 FACSIMILE
DAA A-RIHNKE SAN LUIS OBISPO. CALIFORNIA 93406-0031 805-541-2802
STEVEN L ADAMSKI
THOMAS D.GREEN 805.541.2800
M SUZANNE FRYER
CCYNTHI ARTH 1R GRAHAM CALDEIRA CLIENT 02930
SUSAN S.WAAG
ROY E.OGDEN
THOMAS L MADDEN III
CHRIS A CARR
MARIA L HUTM March 11, 1994
City of San Luis Obispo HAND-DELIVERED
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93403
Attention: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
Re: Salinas Reservoir Expansion/Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Matteson:
This is written as a follow-up to our letter of January 3, 1994, written on behalf of
the Atascadero Mutual Water Company ("AMWC") and commenting on the Draft
Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")for the proposed Salinas Reservoir expansion. Our
earlier letter was based on a limited opportunity to review the potential
geological/hydrological impacts of the project. We have subsequently retained expert
consultants to further analyze the potential impacts.
The preliminary conclusions of that analysis, which for the most part is an elaboration
of our previous comments, are set forth below.
Initially, however, we reiterate .the AMWC remains committed to hill development
and utilization of all water in the County for its highest and best use. Its highest priority,
however, is the protection of the rights of customers to a constant and adequate water supply
consistent with water rights held by the AMWC.
The DEIR needs to focus on the possible hydrologic impact of drought conditions on
the recharge of Salinas River(shallow aquifer) and Atascadero sub-basin of the Paso Robles
Groundwater Basin (deep aquifer). AMWC relies on recharge of the shallow aquifer and
the deep aquifer to supply its customers. The Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
potentially impacts the recharge of the shallow and deep aquifers by reducing the scouring
effect of stream sediments during floods and by decreasing the amount of time that there is
"high water" within the recharge area along the Salinas River corridor.
EXHIBIT $
City of San Luis Obispo
March 11, 1994
Page 2
Total recharge depends on, among other things, the amount of water within the creek,
its depth, the width of the creek, sediment particle size, and length of time the creek flows.
The scouring effect of flood waters is vital to recharge of the aquifers because it removes
fine grained sediments which collect on the creek bottom during normal low flow periods.
The increase in water flow velocity during flood. periods exposes coarse grained
sediments which have greater permeability and therefore allow more water to seep into the
aquifers. The Salinas Reservoir currently spills over the dam about every two years.
Expansion of the reservoir will cause a reduction in the peak monthly flow at Paso Robles
gauging station of about 18 percent. This potentially reduces the scouring effect and the
amount of recharge percolating to the aquifers.
The reduction in frequency of dam overflow and peak monthly flows could also
decrease recharge by decreasing the width, depth and duration of water flow: The increased
capacity of the Salinas Reservoir may reduce the duration of high water conditions and
resulting recharge to the aquifers. The maintenance of a "base flow" under the terms of the
"live stream agreement" may not allow for the same amount of recharge to the aquifers as
the high water conditions. In other words, reliance on the live stream agreement as the
major mitigation factor, without a full analysis of the potential impacts of the expansion or
aquifer recharge, is inadequate.
The effect of Salinas Reservoir expansion on the supply of water for AMWC could
possibly be mitigated by modifications to the "live stream agreement" or other agreements
ensuring an ample water supply for AMWC during drought years. In any event, we believe
that further analysis of the proposed project's effects on runoff conditions and the resulting
recharge of aquifers must be conducted.
As noted in my letter of January 3, the AMWC is willing to work with the City and
its consultants to provide a full analysis of potential impacts. These impacts must be
considered to ensure that the City Council makes an informed decision and that the public
is aware of the pros and cons on which that decision is based.
Very truly yours,
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
THOMAS D. GREEN
TDG:tlg
g:IaV,N Wa7Matteson.309 =
cc: Jeffrey G. JorWmsen, City Attorney
Death&Assodates _
Engineering Geologist -
Ground Water
(805)543-1413
1390 San Luis
lre Drive
Obispo San Luis Obispo
Gsllfomia 93405
December 31, 1993
Thomas Green
Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut & Baggett
1010 Peach Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report for the
Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
Dear Mr. Green:
I have reviewed the draft EIR on the proposed Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project in response to your request. Your main direction to
me is to comment on whether or not the EIR consultant has adequately
considered impacts to water supply sources on which the Atascadero
Mutual Water Company depends.
Atascadero Mutual Water Company depends upon shallow and deep ground
water resources in the vicinity of the .Salinas River to supply its
customers. Both the shallow and deep aquifers depend on recharge from
the Salinas River to replenish ground water in storage, which is
ultimately used by Atascadero MWC. Atascadero is located in the
western portion of the Paso Robles ground water basin which is
particularly dependent on recharge from the Salinas River, rather than
being in the broader portion of the basin between Paso Robles and
Shandon, which is influenced by recharge from other main tributaries
(the Estrella and Huerhuero Creek systems) . The Atascadero portion of
the- ground water basin refills from recharge during most wet seasons
(The Morro Group, 1991) .
With. these sources of water being recharged .by the Salinas River,. any
reduction of flow which would otherwise contribute to recharge in the
vicinity of the Atascadero MWC wells should be estimated and deemed a
significant or insignificant impact. If significant, mitigation
measures should be considered. I have identified several portions of
the EIR which may need to be modified to address this issue.
PAGE PARAGRAPH COMMENT
ES-5 1 a) Reduced flow percentages at Atascadero
should be estimated based on streamf low
estimates in previous reports (The Morro
Group, 1991) . The reduced annual flow
percentage is probably much higher at
Atascadero than those downstream localities
cited.
b) This EIR should assess the-incremental
effect of the project assuming existing
EXHIBIT C - 1
PAGE PARAGRAPH COMMENT (continued)
"cumulative effectsir . If the project will
cause an increased overdraft of the Paso
Robles ground water basin, then this should
be considered a significant impact,
3-65 1 Delete 2nd sentence. Not pertinent to this
EIR.
3-78 . 3 This stream flow simulation should evaluate
the impacts at Atascadero. See The Morro
Group report, 1991, "Long-Term Viability of
Water Supply, City of Atascadero" for
estimated historic annual stream flow totals
at Atascadero.
3-88 2 The maximum incremental annual flow
reduction at Atascadero should be estimated.
3-88 3 The peak monthly flow reduction at
Atascadero should be estimated. The monthly
flow reduction estimates are pertinent to
the impact of the proposed project on ground
water. recharge.
3-90 2 This paragraph comprises the entire section
on ground water recharge impacts but does
not address the potential impact that
reducing stream flow would have on ground
water recharge in Atascadero. This should
be addressed.
3-94 2 Mitigation measures directly related to the
impacts of the proposed project on
Atascadero Mutual Water Company water
sources should be identified and discussed.
3-95 1 The conclusion that "impacts related to
reduced ground water recharge are not
expected to be significant" should not be
made unless an analysis of the impact on the
Atascadero area is performed and the
conclusion is consistent with the analysis.
2
PAGE PARAGRAPH COMMENT (continued)
3-240 5 The cumulative impact of the project related
to the incremental reduction in ground water
recharge resulting from this project is not
discussed in this section despite the fact
that this cumulative. impact is referenced in
other sections of this EIR.
5-1&2 5&1 The discussion of reduced downstream flow
should include those areas that exhibit the
greatest reduced downstream flow (e.g. ,
downstream of the dam to Atascadero) . These
areas ,need additional comment.
See the comment above .about the discussion
regarding -"cumulative effects".
I have not commented on the water rights section in this EIR because
it is more in line with your expertise.
These comments are to be submitted by January 3, 1993. Please let me
know if you have any questions regarding the contents of this letter.
Very truly yours,
Timothy S. Cleath
3
Ueath&Assodates _
Engineering Geologists
Ground Water
(805)543-1413
1390 Oceanalre Drive
San Luis Obispo
California 93405
February 9, 1994
Steven Adamski
Sinsheimer, Schiebelhut & Baggett
P.O. Box 31
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
SUBJECT: Potential Impact Considerations of Raising Salinas Reservoir
Dam on Atascadero Mutual Water Company Water Sources
Dear Mr. Adamski:
Our main concern related to the Atascadero MWC water supply sources
and the raising of the Salinas Reservoir continues to be that the EIR
consultant needs to evaluate worst case conditions and not just
historic records. It is these conditions which I will describe below:
ASSIII4PTIONS
Assume that there have been drought conditions for a couple of years
and the reservoir is at the current capacity (the City having to use
the Nacimiento water first and then using Whale Rock water,
preferentially over Salinas Reservoir water) .
Assume that there has been little water flowing into the reservoir for
the prior few years, therefore resulting in less than live stream
conditions downstream.
Assume that, for the current year, there is only adequate runoff to
fill a portion of the increased reservoir capacity, perhaps occurring
during one storm, (while maintaining the minimum releases for live
stream conditions downstream) .
RESULTING CONDITIONS
Under these conditions, ground water in storage would most likely be
at low levels and that some of the water which could have recharged
under existing conditions would be held in storage at the Salinas
Reservoir.
Runoff from the watershed area upstream of Atascadero but downstream,
or adjacent to, the watershed area behind Salinas River Dam (which is
roughly equivalent in area) should allow recharge of the Atascadero
ground water supplies to some extent under these conditions but we
would like to know if there will be sufficient recharge-under these
conditions to maintain adequate resources for Atascadero MWC.
..\.KWC.LTft EXHIBIT 1 ) 1 February 9, 994
These conditions, if simulated, should be assessed on a monthly time
step, showing shallow aquifer and deep aquifer ground water levels and
stream flow amounts.
If you have any questions regarding these conditions, please call.
Very truly yours,
Timothy S. Cleath -
GIOLOGIS7
OLP
AZ\AKWC.LTR
rebruery 9, 199
Rick Hoffman and Associates CONSULTING ENGINEERING GEOLOGM RG #3740 EG #1 35
1149 Palomino Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 FAX (lam 569-0142 TELEPHONE L805) 569-191,
February 8,1994 FILE:GR948:Atascadero
Atascadero Mutual Water Company =
Post Office Box 6075
Atascadero,California 93423
Attn: Mr. Ken Weathers
Re: Response to Salinas Reservoir Expansion Environmental Impact Report
prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo County, California-
Dear Mr. Weathers:
INTRODUCTION
At your request, we have reviewed portions of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
prepared by Woodward--Clyde Consultants for the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
This brief response letter is meant to provide Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) with
information regarding possible hydrologic impacts from the Reservoir Expansion project on
recharge to the Salinas River Alluvial Aquifer and the underlying Paso Robles Groundwater
Basin (Atascadero sub-basin).
The purpose of the proposed Reservoir Expansion project Is to expand the capacity of the
Salinas Reservoir by installing an operable gate within the spillway to effectively raise the level
dam to capture and store more runoff water within the reservoir. The maximum storage capacity .
will reportedly Increase from approximately 23,843 acre feet (AF) to 41,792 AF (page ES-1
within the EIR)., .The EIR concludes that the average annual incremental project related
reduction in downstream flow relative to historical flow Is approximately 0.9 percent at the Paso .
Robles gauging station. The maximum'in creiiierital aownkrt:am•now reduction at the Paso
Y SZ
Robles gauging station is caiculatrd to tie epproxlmately'10:7 percent(EIR;^page ES-�:
The EIR concludes that the project will have an Insignificant Oproject spedfic' impact, provided
there is a continuation of the 'live stream agreement" to protect.downstream water users.
However, the EIR further concludes that there could be significant cumulative effect on the
overall surface water diversions and groundwater withdrawals by all of the downstream users
(page ES-12).
Based on our review of tho EIR, It Is our opinion that the writers of the document need to
consider several other key hydrologic parameters in their. analysis of the potential for
groundwater related impacts that could occur as a result of the expansion of the Salinas
Reservoir storage capacity. --
ti
Rick 04((man&Aaaoeratea.Eng(neer(ng9/\LpQ(et g�gu lQBUm Page 1
• Response to Salinas 9ese4 ;&pons/on CIA—Atoseadeco Mutuo/Wt. Company -
FebrumV 8, YAN
POTCNABL /MPRs: s
Decrease in Storm Flow Events within the Salinas River
The Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) pumps water from undertlow of the Safinas
River (shallow aquifer) and from the Atascadero sub-basin of the Paso Robles Groundwater
Basin (deep aquifer). In normal to wet rainfall/runoff years, two-thirds or more of the
groundwater production is from underflow. However, in dry years more reliance is placed on the
deep aquifer (Long Term Viability of the Water Supply of the City of Atascadero, Ca(ifomia,
document prepared by the Morro Group,April, 1991). Recharge to the shallow (alluvial) aquifer
Is therefore very Important to AMWC in terms of reliability and cost of operations. Estimates of
recharge to the local aquifer was short of.prpopction by AMWC by.an.average of 4000 acre feet
per year (afy) during the drought of 1987-1990. Production also exceeded recharge in the
drought cycle of 1976-1977, 1959-1961, and 1947-1951 (page 2, Morro Group, 1991)
The so-called "live stream agreement" requires the release of all water flowing Into-the Salinas
Reservoir until a visible flow is observed between the dam and the confluence with the
Nadmiento River(EIR, page 3-51). It Is inferred that the intent of this agreement is to allow for
recharge to occur within.the Salinas River corridor, while allowing the Reservoir to capture
excess surface water runoff during storm events. The EIR fails to discuss the impact of reduced
storm flow events on the recharge capacity of the shallow and deep aquifers. Recharge could be
Impacted by both a reduction in the scouring effect of the.stream sediments during flood events
and the decreased amount of time when there is"high water"within the recharge area along the
Salinas River corridor. We have briefly discussed below each of these potential impacts.
Reel,, d Scour Wects
During normal low flow(sometimes called "base flow') periods within the river corridor,the slow
moving waters tend to deposit fine grained'sediments including sand, sllL.i3nd day.- These fine
grained sediments tend to form a semi4mpervious layer at the interface between the water and
the creek bottom. Recharge to the underlying alluvial and deep aquifers tends to be relatively
slow during these base now periods. Total recharge is dependent on a number of variables
Including (but not limited to) the amount of water within the creek, its depth, the width of the
creek, sediment particle size,and the length of time the creek flows.
Storm runoff events have the effect of scouring out the fine grained sediments from the central
portions of the creek corridor by an increase in flow velocity. These higher flow periods expose
coarse grained sediments (with their associated relatively higher permeability factors) to the
water surface. Removal of the build up of the low permeability fine grained sediments daring low
Rick 11qfrman 8t Asaoeiates.ErVineering Geologtst 8t Hydrologists page 2
' - Rarponse to Sa/lnas Bcs( If Erpansloe EIR—Btosrodero Mutual Wi. ;r Componll
fabroary B, 1994
flow periods by large and prolonged storm events is, in our opinion, critical to maintaining the
recharge capability of the various shallow aquifers along the Salinas River corridor.
The Salinas Reservoir currently spills over the dam on average every two years. (EIR, page 3-
78). Expansion of the reservoir will cause the reservoir to spill less frequently (EIR, page 3-88).
The frequency and longevity of the reservoir non-spill cycles and the significance thereof is not
presented within the EIR. The expansion of the reservoir will also cause a reduction in the peak
monthly flow at Paso Robles gauging station of approximately 18 percent based on historic flow
data and modeling analysis conducted in 1989 by Leedshill-Herkenfhoff (EIR, page 3-88). This
reduction in peak storm water runoff cycles could reduce the amount of scouring effect within the
Salinas River corridor,thereby effecting the amount of recharge available for percolation..
Reduced Duration andJlow Volume within the Salinas River Corridor
As described above, the frequency of dam overflow and reduction in peak monthly flows could
reduce the amount of scouring effects within the creek corridor. Reduced scouring could, in tum,
reduce the amount of recharge that occurs both within the shallow and deep aquifers that the
AMWC is dependent on. While the "live stream agreement"will allow for the passage of surface
water within the Salinas River during an average winter month, the amount of flow could be
reduced because of the increased capacity of the Salinas Reservoir.
The reduced peak flow volume within the Salinas River could also decrease recharge because of
the lessening of the width,depth, and duration of flow. Maintaining a'base flown condition under
the terms of the"live stream agreement' may not allow for the same amount of recharge to the
local aquifer as compared to longer duration flood flow conditions that currently occur every
other year, on average. in our opinion, the decrease In duration of high water conditions within
the Salinas River corridor has not been adequately addressed within-the EIR.
POTENT/RL.:M/T/O17TlO1VMEASIFUCS:
It Is our opinion that the Atascadero Mutual Water Company should consider discussing possible
mitigation measures with the City of San Luis Obispo that could allow for the construction of an -
expanded Salinas Reservoir while, maintaining a reliable supply of groundwater for the users
within the down stream sections of the Salinas River.Corridorif We have provided below a list of
several possible mitigation measures that could be considered to reduce the possible hydrologic
Impacts to the AMWC.
Rick Hqffinan&Associates-E1ingrneering Oeorogrst&Hydrologists page 3
Rasponss to Sa/lnar Rcs� Ir E;panrlon E1R—Atascodaro Mutuo/tlh. :r Componv •. ' _"_"
fwbrvory 8, 1994
Modification to the 'Live Stream Agreement"
The give stream agreement" could be modified to'allow for one or more "flood stage" runoff
cycles to occur during the winter months to improve the scouring effect within the creek corridor,
thereby improving the potential for recharge into the underlying aquifer. The basis for the timing
and duration of the release of flood stage waters could be based on historic flow data from the
Salinas River near Atascadero or other appropriate area. Other wording could be developed that
lengthens the duration of high water runoff cycles during the winter months to improve the
recharge potential. Simply allowing what will be a lower than average"base flow"to occur during
the winter runoff season (as Is currently allowed under the terms of the existing live stream
agreement) does not insure that recharge will not be impacted. It.is these,"unknown" possible
reductions in recharge potential that should be considered in much greater detail within the final
EIR..
Controlled Releases of Stored Water into the Salinas River
Because the AMWC is very dependent on its shallow (alluvial) aquifer for much of its water
demand, the Salinas Reservoir Water Authority could provide for release of stored water during
a"drought emergency"defined by a rfuutuaily negotiated agreement.` An alternative to this plan
would be to construct a pipeline,from-the Salinas Reservoir'(or as part of the Nacimiento
Reservoir, shared use plan)directly to Atascadero that could be activated during a severe water
shortage.
CONCLUSIONS
There may be other. altemaUves`.to the:::projectl andfor::mlUgaUon. measures that-may be
implemented to reduce the hydrologic impacts to an Insignificant level: It is our recommendation
that additional analysis should be conducted addressing the Issues presented herewith and those
recommended by others: l3ecause theAtascadero.:Mutual .Water.. '
. =.... .. ._Companyyasualmosttotally ~F :.
dependent on recharge from runoff waters within the-SaMas River, continued long duration flow
Qncluding maintenance of peak flow conditions) Is necessary to insure a reliable source of water
for its customers. Any major changes to these runoff conditions should be carefully analyzed,
both hydrologically and legally, to determine the long term Impacts to the groundwater users
along the Salinas River corridor.
.......\".••"."�����N���"""��� "NDN1"��N����"""���"������� •....N.....N..•.N..N.... .NN"..."�����N
Rick Hgjjman&Associates-Jhgrneerrng Geologist&Hydrologists page;
Bcaponsa to Sollaos,94 ,.r'&ponslo,7ffT—Rtoscadero Afutuol ik-,-ir Componp
Fsbfumv8, 1994 .. ..._ `
We trust this brief letter report provides you with the planning Information you requested. Please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this letter or other geologic or
hydrologic matters.
Sincerely,
Rick Hoffman
Certified Engineering Geologist
State of California
RG#3740 CEG#1135
r -
SLh n y
1 � .• �f''SY+FtT� Z h�
TJ�_ t`
Rick Hq f ratan 8t Aesoatae—-Ehgtnee►ing aeorograt et HydroLagteto.. . . Page 6
a� DONALD W. WEAVER & ASSOCIATES
Conndiing Geologists
w February 9, 1994
Mr. Ken Weathers
Atascadero Mutual Water Company
post Office Box 6075
Atascadero, California 93423
Re: Salinas Water Reservoir Expansion
and the Woodward - Clyde Report
Dear Mr. Weathers:
As afollow-up to our discission last week, I would like to
summarize my thoughts regarding the proposed raising of the Salinas
Reservoir Dam.
Prior to our discussion, I made a quick review of the Woodward
Clyde report regarding this proposed project and found it to be a
pro-project statement without significant concern for the
downstream users of the aquifers along the Salinas River drainage.
This is to be expected, since Woodward - Clyde are consultants to
the City•of San Luis Obispo, the beneficiary of such a. project and
one that does not lie within the Salinas River drainage system.
My initial concerns are as follows:
1. I suggest that under the current California groundwater law, the
City of San Luis Obispo would ever be able to obtain other than
surplus waters from the mtf r13 ^ -PO drainage since they lie
outside of this major watershed. .However, two items should be given
close attention. (a) Does the legal doctrine of prescription,
especially when one considers the large amount of money as well as
time frame involved with this project and when coupled with the
modern concept of "intervening public interest," possibly alter or
expand the ability to prescript outside of one's groundwater
basins? and (b) With the greatly expanding need for water in the
Southwestern United States, and particularly in California, one has
to expect that the California constitutional concept of "highest
and best use" of the water supply will outweigh the hundred years
of case law that has long protected the groundwater rights of the
individual property owners. In short, the water law will surely
evolve in the immediate future towards what the politicians and the
courts will decide is the "highest and best use". _-
EXHIBIT F
1400 NOR-ni FAMVIF W • GOLZMA. CALIFORNIA 93117 • (805) 964-20.54 • FAX (W M-1016
2. I am not intimately familiar with the referred to Live Stream
Agreement, but one should be suspect of reducing the periodic
flooding in a river system while believing that a trickle of water
down a braided stream such as the Salinas River is sufficient
protection for adequately recharging either the riparian gravels or
the deeper associated aquifers. This is a complex relationship
beyond the scope of this brief memo. I would suggest, however, that
not only further studies be demanded by mutually agreed upon
specialists in this field., but that the Live Stream Agreement, if
found to be inadequate, be expanded to the benefit of Atascadero in
order to insure that San Luis Obispo takes only those waters that
are truly surplus to the drainage. In essence, if a shortage should
occur, especially during a drought, downstream users have priority
over all waters in the Reservoir necessary to insure the viability
of the downstream aquifers.
Thus I recommend a close examination of the legal rights of
the City of San Luis Obispo to any but the surplus waters in the
Salinas River drainage as well as the adequacy of the Live Stream
Agreement to protect both the shallow and the deep aquifers.
Perhaps an agreement can be worked out to benefit all, whereby
during times of water shortage sufficient releases or availability
of water are made to satisfy the needs of the Atascadero Water
Company and other downstream users.
If I can be of further aid or partake in any discussions, as
it feels good to be asked during one's retirement years, please
call upon me.
Sincerely yours,
Donald WWeaver
Engineering Geologist
state of California 0917
Ono
LAW OFFICES
STANLEY C. HATCH HATCH AND PARENT
3CRALO S. PARENT TELEPHONE
S.TIMOTHY BVTNAK.JR.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ISOSI 003-0231
SUSAN F. PETROVICH 21 EAST CARRILLO STREET MAILING ADORCSS
PETER N. BROWN POST OFFICE ORAWCR 720
STANLEY M. ROOEN SANTA BARBARA. GUFORNIA 93101-2782
THOMAS O. WISE SANTA BARBARA, CA 93102-0720
SCOTT S. SLATER' - FACSIMILE
STEVEN A.AMERIKANER 16051 065-4333
GARY M. KVISTAD
CHRISTOPHER A.JACOBS
COLIN L. PEARCC
JEFFREY A. OINKINI 6775. 5
KERRY OON ALEXANDER
LORI LEWIS PERRY
KEVIN J. NEESE May 2, 1994
ROBERT J. SAPCRSTCIN
11 ucepowr�
Mr. Thomas D. Green
SINSHEIMER, SCHIEBELHUT & BAGGETT
P.O. Bos 31
San Luis Obispo, California 93406-0031
Re: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, Draft
Environmental Impact Report, Comments by Sinscheimer
Schiebelhut & Baggett
Dear Mr. Green:
The following is provided in response to your follow-up
comments dated March 11, 1994, on the Salinas Reservoir
Expansion, Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) .
As a general note, the City has addressed these issues in-
detail in its final EIR. In doing so, the City has analyzed the
data contained in 1991 Moro Group Report. This information and
analysis has been used in compilation of the final EIR. Thus you
will find a more -comprehensive response to your concerns in the
response to comments section of the final EIR.
To briefly address your March 11, 1994, letter. . Section
3.4 of the DEIR addressed the downstream flow reduction impacts
associated with the project. The impact of drought
considerations on the recharge of the Salinas River and
Atascadero sub-basin of the Paso Robles Ground-
water Basin have been examined. Once the expanded reservoir -Ys
filled, downstream flow effects would be similar to the current
situation.
A recharge area can be defined as that portion of the
drainage basin in which the net saturated flow ofgroundwater is
directed away from the water table. In a recharge area, the
water table usually lies at some depth; in a discharge area, the
water table is usually at or very near the surface. The Live
Stream Agreement provides for a visible surface flow in the
Salinas River resulting in a water table being at or near the
surface. As a consequence, scouring effects from flood flows
would be insignificant in terms of recharge to the groundwater
basin.
EXHIBIT G
Mr. Green
May 2, 1994
Page 2
The DEIR has previously noted flow reductions in the
Salinas River could potentially reduce the quantity of recharge
' from the river bed into the groundwater basin. The Live Stream
Agreement requires all reservoir inflow be released unless there
is a visible stream to the confluence with the Nacimiento River
and the reservoir captures water primarily during the wet winter
months. Because the rate of recharge is also a function of the
deep permeable sediments and a water table that does not rise to
ground surface, a reduction in the duration of high water
conditions will have no significant effect on recharge as, long as
the Live Stre4.., agreement is in effi.Ct supplying a' visible El oiw
of water at the surface.
Perhaps, the most efficient nest step is for you to review
the final EIR when it is available. If you .have any additional
comments or concerns after your review of the final EIR, please
contact Mr. Gary Henderson, City of San Luis Obispo, Water
Division Manager, (805) 781-7237.
Si cerely,
C S. ER
ROBERT J. SAPERSTEIN
For HATCH AND PARENT
ROB:dlr
cc: Mr. Gary Henderson
0206w
•Y • r • �• Vr . rV• V •� • Y••V YJJVV •V•.VJ v J�J r • Vr • . `
Cleath a. Associates
Engineering Geologists -
Ground Water -
(805)543-1413
1390 ire Drive
San LLd
San LWs Obispo
Callfomla 93405
July 17, 1997
Mr. Ken Weathers
Atascadero Mutual Water Company
P. O. Box 6075
Atascadero, CA 93423
SUBJECT.- Comments on Revised Draft EIR for the Proposed Salinas Reservoir Expansion
Project.
Dear Mr. Weathers:
As requested, Cleath& Associates has reviewed portions of the above-referenced draft EIR relating to
potential impacts to the Atascadero Mutual Water Company (AMWC) water resources. This letter
presents the results of the review. Included herein is an evaluation and discussion of the assumptions and
methods used by EIR consultant Woodward-Clyde with specific recommendations for improving the
impacts analyses.
The assessment of potentially significant impacts from the proposed project on AMWC water resources
involved running a spreadsheet model developed by the City of San Luis Obispo, estimating Salinas River
flows at Atascadei-o, and correlating the estimated flows with water levels in AMWC Well 1 (shallow)
and Well 7 (deep). Each of the three tasks are discussed below.
Spreadsheet Model
The spreadsheet model developed by the City of San Luis Obispo runs on a monthly time-step and was
used by Woodward-Clyde to estimate reductions in reservoir spills under two scenarios, the"existing
dam case"and the"raised dam case^. A yield value of 10,000 afy was used for both existing and raised
dam scenarios. It is not reasonable to assume that the City would withdraw the same amount of water,
even under worst-case conditions, from the existing reservoir than from the raised dam reservoir. The
raised dam reservoir reportedly increases the safe yield of the dam by 1,650 acre-feet per year (afy).
Therefore, the City would plan on diverting, on average, 1,650 acre-feet more than it could now(the
reservoir's safe yield was estimated at 4,800 afy in the City's Water Master Plan, 1986). Under worst-
case conditions the safe yield of the reservoir could be exceeded for several years, however, by assuming
the withdrawals under the two scenarios would be the same, the EIR consultant is assuming the City
would knowingly overdraft the reservoir at a great rate under existing conditions than under the raised
_.C:%A?Vn91El R%c e+nt EXHIBIT H Jv1Y 17. 1197
dam conditions. This is effectively changing the operational management of the dam between the two
scenarios,which is not appropriate.
If 10,000 afy is Woodward-Clyde's selection for an appropriate withdrawal amount for worst-case
conditions under the raised dam, then the existing dam withdrawals should be no more than 8,350 afy.
In addition,besides mentioning that the existing facilities cannot physically convey 10,000 afy from the
reservoir, the draft EIR should clearly state that this value is used solely for impacts assessment and is
greater than both the reservoir safe yield and the permitted diversion amount.
Cleath&Associates recommends that the maximum historical withdrawal by the City in the model period
(7,272 acre-feet)be used for the existing dam yield value and the maximum permitted diversion from the
reservoir(8,977 afy) used for the raised dam yield value. These values are probably more in-line with
actual dam operations under worst-case conditions.
The spreadsheet model is run on a monthly time-step but the results are reported on an annual basis.
Potential impacts of reduced flows on a water supply includes both long-term and short-term impacts.
Averaging the potential impacts of the proposed project to water resources on an annual basis does not
address the short-term impacts.
Both the spreadsheet and data sets are available on a monthly basis. According to the current draft ETR
impacts analyses,the greatest potentially significant impacts to downstream wells attributable to a raised
dam would have occurred under 1993 conditions. Therefore, in addition to summarizing the impacts
assessment on an annual basis for the selected 1972-1994 time period,the critical period in 1993 should
also be analyzed and presented on a monthly basis. Cleath& Associates recommends performing the
monthly analysis between October 1, 1992 and September 30, 1994.
The validity of the City's spreadsheet model in performing the spill reduction calculations has been
reviewed and deemed acceptable by the Woodward-Clyde. It would be helpful for technical review,
however,for the EIR consultant to provide an example calculation of the monthly spill, to explain bow
reservoir evaporation is adjusted for the model scenarios;to identify the monthly variation of City yield
over the year, and to identify any reservoir diversions that were limited by the minimum pool
requirements.
Salinas River Flow Estimates
The estimates of flow at Atascadero used in the draft EIR were from a study for the City of Atascadero
by The Morro Group (Long-term Viability of Water Supply, City of Atascadero, March 1991). The
methods used by The Morro Group to estimate flows between 1984 and 1989 (and used by Woodward-
Clyde to extend the estimates through 1994) are based on a tenuous correlation between estima'
stream flow at Atascadero with gaged stream flow at Paso Robles. Data on the pTots from which ..
P:\ANAA97E 10.\dd®lf.t a.wpd 2 1•s1, 17. 1997
■
algorithms for high- and low-flow conditions were derived is scattered and the resulting estimates are
highly questionable(see Figure 5,page 16 of The Morro Group report). The Morro Group did not use,
or did not have access to, the reservoir inflow data available to the EIR consultant.
There is ample data to derive flow estimates for an appropriate point in the channel downstream of the
dam. Besides reservoir inflow data,gaged records are available for Santa Margarita Creek,Trout Creek
and Yerba Buena Creek from which these and other watershed contributions downstream of the dam may
be estimated. Although the estimated flows would be the same for the baseline and project runs, the
magnitude of the flows affect the degree of impact and is a major component of the impacts assessment.
A greater level of effort by the EIR consultant in providing reasonable flow estimates is warranted.
Water Level Estimates for AMWC Wells
The last step performed in the impacts assessment for water resources was a calculation of the amount
of water level decline at selected AMWC water supply wells from the raised dam project. The two wells .
used by Woodward-Clyde for correlating water levels with stream flow are Well.l (shallow)and Well
7(deep). Neither one of these AMWC wells will necessarily incur the greatest impact from the project.
Well 1 is at the confluence with Atascadero Creek and would benefit from runoff in that watershed.
Upstream wells(such as Well 5 and Well 12)that are above the confluence of Atascadero Creek may be
more sensitive to Salinas Reservoir operations.
The EIR consultant assumes but has not shown that Well 1 and Well 7 are suitable for representing the
worst-case impacts of the project on AMWC water resources. A review of available AMWC well
information is recommended to identify the shallow and deep wells which experience the greatest drops
in production due to water level declines and are the most sensitive to Salinas River flows. Correlating
water level declines and well production losses is important for impacts assessment. The incremental
water level declines due to the raised dam estimated for AMWC wells should be interpreted in terms of
possible losses in production. A determination of pumping water levels (and the corresponding static
levels)below which significant ant production losses occur at the appropriate AMWC wells would facilitate
an impartial assessment of the project impacts.
The comparison of modeled monthly water levels at these wells under existing and raised dam scenarios
for the time period from October 1, 1992 through September 30, 1994, along with identification of the
critical window where production drops in each well would show whether or not there was a significant
impact on well production. Monthly production and water level data to perform these comparisons is
available. As drafted, the EIR reports the average and maximum annual incremental decline in water
levels and declares them not significant, without any hydrogeologic rationale to support this assertion.
Average annual water levels and the average estimated annual flows were used to correlate water levels
with estimated stream flow in the draft EIR. Due to the cyclic nature of water levels and stream flow,
r:werc9�eacom.�c,. �a 3 July », 1091
the data should be correlated on a monthly time-step. This would provide many more data points and
should improve the correlation. Actual well production figures may also be used to adjust historical
water levels slightly up or down to control this third variable.
Estimated water levels using historical flows and the algorithms in the draft EIR are within about 5 feet
of the actual historical water levels for the shallow well and deviate up to about 25 feet of the actual
historical water levels for the deep well. The incremental difference between the baseline and project
scenarios are relative and therefore not subject to as great a variation. When comparing the modeled
water level estimates under baseline and project conditions to the depth at which significant production
losses occur,however,the accuracy of both the water level estimates and the incremental differences are
important.
Given the relatively.wide distribution of water levels at similar stream flow rates, water level estimates
should reflect the lowest possible water level (worst case)for a given flow rate. There are several ways
of adjusting the correlation curve to reflect worst-case, such as by subtracting an appropriate value from
all water levels(effectively lowering the curve), or by using only the lowest water levels for deriving the .
best-fit line. For example, in Figure 3.49 of the draft EIR, lowering the correlation curve by about four
feet would result in conservatively modeled water level estimates appropriate for the impacts analys
Conclusions
The assessment of potentially significant impacts to AMWC water resources performed in the draft EIR
has several major shortcomings, as listed below.
• Yield assumptions used in the scenarios and the averaging of impacts on an annual basis are not
appropriate.
• Salinas River flow estimates at Atascadero are from previous work using limited data and
questionable correlations.
• The AMWC wells used for impacts assessment may not be those most severely affected by the
raised dam project.
• The correlation between water levels and river flow was made on an average annual basis instead
of on a monthly basis and was not adjusted to reflect worst-case conditions.
• No information was developed which would indicate whether or not the incremental water level
declines attributable to the raised dam project would significantly impact AMWC production.
The overall level of effort performed to quantify the impact and assess its degree of significance is not
sufficient given the tremendous importance•of water resources in San Luis Obispo County_ The specific
recommendations given in this letter should significantly improve the information quality for the impacts
assessment. _
-- P:\A,9T\97EI¢\c9m9nt�.�p7 4 July 17. 1997
u1 :--.%uF- c ieacn ana assaciat-es out 0YJ- 1 / 00 r .uo
■
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Sincerely,
;-Tmothv S.S. Cleath, HG 81 Oc J. 6310
Principal Hydrogeologist Associate Geologist
\S�EptED o,
Qcv���t�Y S. C, .00��ti
No.HG 81 y
'k Hro ocEOL IST
FOF CAL1F��
"'F:\N41C�97610.\tamntn[a...pJ 5 July l7. 1991
►'��TING AGENDA
t►..rE ii-o -oa ITEM #;
COUNCIL ❑CC^r'3
RAISING THE HEIGHT OF THE SALINAS DAM HAS WORSE IMA �oTHAT THE OF _ ' -:
CITY OF SLO HAS DISCLOSED WTTORNEY 0P16I5:,I
9ad[ERKIORIG ❑POLM,C::=
❑I.;^MT TEAM ❑R`DIIt
by Marge Erickson ®-Y �- D TILDIR
Cr.TR%AU#1r O PERS DIR
The City of San Luis Obispo thinks it needs more water to &j.Ae.nde/ret1
accommodate future planned growth . In order to get more water , the
City proposes to raise the height of the Salinas Dam by 19 feet .
While that might not seem much , the scope of the project is
immense . The capacity of the dam would be increased 75% from'
23 , 843 acre feet to 41 ,792 acre feet . The project would result in
periodic inundation of an additional 395 acres of wetlands ,
riparian habitat and oak woodlands , including 16 ,050 linear feet
of stream habitat , 73 acres of pine-oak woodland containing 1639
coast live oaks , 633 blue oaks , and 198 valley oaks , for a total
of 2470 oak trees , plus 469 gray pines . Also included in the
periodic innundation zone are 35 .6 acres of willow scrub/woodland ,
3 .9 acres of mixed riparian woodland , 12 . 2 acres of riparian
forest , and degradation of 22 . 1 acres of riparian woodland
understory owing to periodic innundation .
The area to be inundated by the raised dam and disturbed by the
relocation of recreational resources contains many species of
special concern , such as the Southwestern Pond Turtle and the Two-
Striped Garter Snake, as well as several federally and state
endangered and threatened species , including the Bald Eagle ,
California Condor , White-tailed Kite , American Peregrine Falcon ,
Least Bell 's Vireo , Southwestern Willow Flycatcher , California Red-
legged Frog . Although the City claims that there are no threatened
Steelhead Trout below the dam, recent evidence suggests otherwise ,
and until the dam was built , they were abundant in the Salinas
River .
In connection with the project , virtually all of the current
recreational facilities surrounding the lake will be moved , with
new roads to be built and considerable cut-and-fill operations to
be undertaken .
In order to accommodate the increased capacity of Santa Margarita
Lake , the dam will need to be substantially strengthened and the
spillway will need to be armored .
Before the City can undertake the project as planned , it must
obtain an extension of time to complete the beneficial use granted
in its water rights permit in 1941 . The State Water Resources
Control Board will shortly issue its decision regarding granting
the City another 10 years to complete the project . .
In June 1998 , the City certified a Final Environmental Impact
Report . But the FEIR does not adequately address concern
adverse impacts to habitat above and below the dam, incr are EIVED
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 1 No V 0 9 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
seismic vulnerability because the of greatly increased volume of
water to be impounded behind the dam, adverse impacts to
downstream water users , and the growth-inducing effects of the
added water supply . To some extent , the State Water Resources
Control Board has recognized these deficiencies and is expected to
order additional studies before it will grant the City an
extension of time to increase the height of the dam.
The City ' s Plans To Mitigate for Lost Habitat Are Inadequate and
Illusory `
The City recognizes that the law requires it to mitigate the
detrimental impacts to the environment that the dam project will
cause . However , it has not yet developed any tangible mitigation
plans for the loss of riparian habitat and wetlands , and admits
that any habitat restoration or creation will not reach fruition
until 5 to 15 years after they are begun . The endangered and
threatened species will have nowhere to be in the interim, and may
be lost forever .
Although the City claims it will develop a mitigation plan that
will rely on restoring and/or enhancing native habitats on nearby
private lands with willing landowners , thus far no land has been
contracted . Currently , the only property the City is attempting to
acquire is 49 acres of steep , not-in-kind habitat out of the
Salinas watershed and 15 miles from the project , property that
cannot provide the habitat that will be destroyed by the project .
Even worse , there is some evidence that the City in fact will
attempt to avoid its obligation to replace destroyed habitat by
offering monetary compensation to public or private agencies , as
if money can mitigate destruction of habitat and species .
Seismic Concerns
Recently the City received a Dam Safety Evaluation Study
undertaken in order to meet the requirements of the California
Department of Water Resources , Division of Safety of Dams
requirements . This report concludes that the FEIR did not
accurately consider the magnitude of earthquake possible along the
Rinconada fault . The study concluded that the dam will be
seismically unsafe unless it is strengthened beyond the degree of
strengthening contemplated in the FEIR, increasing the cost of the
project by $11 ,000 ,000 or over 50%.
The City Did Not Plan To Mitigate for the Decreased Amount of
Water it Would Be Releasing Downstream
Although the City claims the increased size of the dam will have
no impact or only minimal impact on the river downstream, both the
State Water Resources Control Board and the National Marine
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 2
Fisheries Service has determined otherwise . In its draft order ,
the SWRCB concluded that the raised dam will contribute to the
overdraft in the Paso Robles groundwater basin . The SWRCB also
noted that it could not conclude that there were no Steelhead in
the river below the dam or that the project would not adversely
impact any steelhead that might be present .
In addition , the National Marine Fisheries Service is also
concerned with the downstream impacts of even the current
operation of the Dam and is requesting the SWRCB to order interim
releases of water .
This Project Will Induce Growth and Development .
The stated purpose of the project is to provide the City with an
additional 1650 acre feet of water per year (AFY) . The City
projects that it will require 3861 AFY of water by the year 2022
to meet growth projections . This project is projected to supply
43% of that anticipated need . That 1650 AFY could easily be
supplied by water conservation and by buying up state water rights
that are currently available . In fact , however , the project will
supply an additional 2000 AFY for increased reserves , which can
potentially provide for more growth than the City claims . .
The FEIR projects that raising the dam will provide water to
accommodate a portion of the City's planned growth between now and
2022 . The FEIR projects water need at 145 gallons of water per
person per day , which would allow for 5000 additional people .
However , the current water usage is 123 gallons per person per
day. If current water use rema.ins the same, the water contemplated
by this project can accommodate an additional 12 ,000 people . If
the 2000 AFY is used , then over 25 ,000 additional people could be
accommodated . m
Marge Erickson is an attorney (for 20 years) in Santa Barbara with
a keen interest in environmental issue . She is a board member of
the Santa Barbara Permaculture Network and volunteers legal help
for local environmental organizations .
11/9/00 untitled 3 Page 3
MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JOSF COOMER.JR. EDWAPD J.GUINN.JR. ATTORNEYS KENT W.SILVESTER THOMAS J.NOOUEROLA
DAV OTTISWOOD MARK GORTON DANIEL V.MARTIN= STEPHEN M.LERNER
DON. .POOLE ROBEP-R.RUSIN 556 CAPITOL MALL. 9" FLOOR STEVEN A."MON JEREMY S.KASHIAN
RICHARD W.OSEN MORGAN T.JONES JAN PATRICK SHERRY KEVIN O.SIEGEL
RICHARD E.BRANDT PATRICIA D.ELLIOTT PAUL C.ANDERSON
0.RICHARD BROWN WILLIAM C.NILSON.JR. SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 9SS14-4692 L.STUART LIST
DAVID W.POST IRIS P.YANG JEREMY S.MILLSTONE OF COUNSEL
SUSAN K.SOLING CATHY DEUSEL SALENKO TELEPHONE: (916) 444-3900 STACEY N.SHESTOM V.BARLOW GOFF
DAVID F.BEATTY JACK D.BROWN ANDRE K.CAMPBELL RICHARD W.NICHOLS
MICHAEL T.FOGARTY THOMAS L.HILL FACSIMILE:(916) 444-8334 WSON M.SHOWER ANN TAYLOR SCHWING
NATALIE E.WEST NANCY P.LEE ERIC N.ROBINSON 'ZACHARY SMITH
INTERNET:WY/W.RIh BIBW.COT CLEMENT J.DOUGHERTY.in.
ANN O'COMnELL MARY E.OLDER SET"M[ EWI
.ROBERT W.O-CONNOP EDWARD J.WRIGHT.JR. JAMES CLARKS LIN"R.BECK
JEFFRY R.JONES MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON LAURA J.FOWLER RICHARD G.RYPINSKI
T.BRENT HAWKINS STEPHEN L.GO" GERALD J.RAMISA _ JOHN R.BRIOO6
JAMES M.RUDDICK MICHAEL K.IWANIRO October 20 2000 CA . R. OBINSON CHRISTINE R.HALL
DAWN H.COLE GLENN W.PETERSON / CAROL ROL RR.VICTTOR
SHARON DAY ROSEME DAVID L.KROTINS KAREN WHITE MURPHY RETIRED
SUSAN L.SCHOENIG TIMOTHY P.MAYES DANIEL V.M.SIEGLER ALFRED E.M0L4N0
JAMES L.LLET TODD M.BAILEY CAITLIN E.ROSS BRUCE F.ALLEN
VIRGINIA A.CAHILL MARC'.L.AUGSBURGER JANA OU BOIS MARTIN MCDONOUGH
HARRIET A.STEINER NANCY T.TEMPLETON ETHAN WALSH 11018-.0671
WILLIAM A.LICHT.G O"ID E.MACCHIAVELLI RODNEY R.NOV
Via Federal Express
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Re: Request by the City of El Paso de Robles that the City of San Luis
Obispo prepare a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report before
approving the Salinas Dam Expansion Project
Dear Council Members:
The City of El Paso de Robles requests that the City of San Luis Obispo
prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report("EIR") on its proposed
Salinas Dam Expansion Project before taking any action to approve the project.
This request is based on new information showing that the seismic and dam
safety impacts of the reservoir expansion will be significantly more severe than
shown in the original EIR for the project This new dam safety information was
prepared by San Luis Obispo's engineering consultant,URS Greiner Woodward
Clyde,after the original EIR was certified in 1998. The new dam safety analysis
concludes that if the storage capacity of Salinas Reservoir were increased,the
existing Salinas Dam would not be strong enough to withstand the design
earthquake on the Rinconada fault In other words,the new studies conclude
that the project,as originally designed and proposed,cannot be built without
risking catastrophic dam failure.
A copy of Volumes I and H of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
Dam Safety Evaluation Final Report prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo by
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde is enclosed with this letter. Documents
summarizing this new dam failure analysis and describing project redesign
options were presented to the City Council in the July 18,2000,City of San Luis
Obispo Council Agenda Report("Council Agenda Report"). The agenda packet
contained two attachments: (1) Executive Summary of"Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project Dam Safety Evaluation" ("Executive Summary")and (2)July 5,
2000,letter from San Luis Obispo's dam expansion consultant,URS Greiner
Woodward Clyde,to San Luis Obispo's water division manager,Gary
ru0w uTY OFFICE
422 CENTURY PARK DRIVE,SUITE A BAY AREA OFFICE
P.O.BOX 77 IPSO HARRISON STREET.SUITE 1100
VUBA CITY.CALIFORNIA B5902b0776 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
TELEPHONCI(B2o)674-0761 TELEPHONE:(610)293-0760
FACSIMILE:(630)6T1-0990 FACSIMILE:(610)829.9104
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 2
Henderson("URS Letter'). Copies of these documents are enclosed with this .
letter.
The Executive Summary of the Dam Safety Evaluation states that the
results of the computer analy-is indicate that for the case of the raised reservoir
level, "the stresses induced in the dam by the Maximum Credible Earthquake on
the Rinconada fault would be much greater than the strength of the concrete in
many portions of the dam. As such,the analyses indicate that the dam is not
strong enough to withstand strong ground shaking with the increased load from
a raised reservoir. The dam,under the proposed reservoir raise,does not satisfy
modern seismic performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by
DSOD [Division of Safety of Dams]." (Executive Summary,pp. 2-3 (emphasis
added).)
The URS letter suggests two conceptual approaches for seismically
strengthening Salinas Dam,each of which involves a major redesign of the
proposed project and neither of which was discussed in the Salinas Reservoir
Enlargement Project EIR.
This new information requires preparation of a subsequent EIR under the
California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). Public Resources Code section
21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provide that a subsequent EIR
must be prepared when any of the following three events occurs:
(1) new information,which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as
complete becomes available.
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the environmental impact report;or
(3) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the EIR;
Pub. Res. Code§21166. Although only one of these three events need occur to
require preparation of a subsequent EIR,the new seismic and dam safety
analysis produced by San Luis's engineering consultant requires preparation of a
subsequent EIR under all three tests.
First, the seismic and dam safety analysis produced in June and July 2000
constitutes new information that was not known,and could not have been
known,when San Luis certified its EIR in 1998,and thus triggers Public
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 3
Resources Code section 21166(c). The Agenda Report even calls the new seismic
data "new information." (See Council Agenda Report at 4.)
CEQA Guideline section 15162 clarifies that the type of new information
that triggers the requirement to'r repare a subsequent EIR includes information
showing that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or showing that significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The new-information
shows that if the dam is expanded as San Luis proposes,it"would not be strong
enough to withstand the design earthquake on the Rinconada fault." (Council
Agenda Report at 4). Although previous seismic studies indicated that an
expanded dam would be stable during the design earthquake, "current analyses
show that the dam would not be strong enough to withstand the design
earthquake." (Executive Summary at 3.) Accordingly, "[t]he dam with a raised
reservoir level does not satisfy modern seismic performance evaluation criteria
such as those currently used by DSOD." (Executive Summary at 5.) This
information establishes that the project as described in the FEIR will have
significant seismic impacts not discussed in the FEIR and substantially more
severe than acknowledged in the section of the FEIR dealing with seismicity and
faulting.
Second,the new data shows that earthquake forces acting on the dam are
likely to be 70 percent greater than the forces previously assumed. (See Council
Agenda Report at 3;Executive Summary at 4-5.) The increase in the severity of
the expected earthquake forces constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken,triggering Public Resources Code
section 21166(b).
Third, the major new construction proposed to address the greater
earthquake forces would transform the dam expansion project into something
substantially different from the project proposed by San Luis and analyzed in its
EIR. The EIR analyzed installation of drum gates at the dam's existing spillway,
without any strengthening of the concrete arch dam structure. The new
information shows that either the dam thickness must be substantially
increased—an approach that might not be technically feasible—or a massive
concrete buttress must be constructed to support the downstream side of the
dam. (See Council Agenda Report at 3;June 30,2000,URS letter.) Either
approach constitutes a substantial change to San Luis'proposed project that
would cause potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that require
major revisions to the existing EIR,triggering Public Resources Code section
21166(a).)
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 4
The URS Letter identifies a list of"CONS" for each approach to addressing
the project's seismic safety problems. Building a massive concrete buttress
would give the dam a "significantly different" appearance, (URS Letter at 4),
which raises new aesthetic impact issues. Aggregate required to make the
buttress concrete"can not be prodor:ed on site and will need to be imported",
(id.),which raises new traffic and air quality issues. Building a buttress would
prevent installation of the proposed spillway drum gates,which"could restrict
reservoir operation flexibility." (Id.) This raises questions about all resource
impacts affected by the dam's proposed operational regime, including harm to
downstream water users,like Paso Robles..None of these potential adverse
environmental impacts have been analyzed and subjected to public review and
comment,as required by CEQA.
A subsequent EIR is necessary under CEQA to present the new dam
failure analysis,to describe the recommended alternatives for redesigning the
dam expansion project to address the threat of catastrophic failure,to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the alternative project designs and to
prescribe mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts. Only if the City of San
Luis Obispo prepares a subsequent EIR containing this information will the
public,other government agencies with authority to approve the project and the
City Council,itself,have the information needed to understand the public safety" '
and environmental consequences of approving a dam expansion project.
Just last month,in a case involving the State Water Project,Planning and
Conservation league v. Department of Water Resources,83 Cal. App.4th 892(2000),
the court of appeal stated: "The ultimate decision of whether to approve a
project,be that decision right or wrong,is a nullity if based upon an EIR that
does not provide the decision-makers,and the public, with the information about
the project that is required by CEQA." Id. at 916. The error is prejudicial"if the
failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and
informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR
process."Id. The court referred to the"essential mission of CEQA to present a
full disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal." Id. Any
decision by the City Council to approve the proposed dam expansion project
without first disclosing important information regarding seismic impacts and
dam.safety in a subsequent EIR would jeopardize public safety and violate
CEQA.
San Luis Obispo may not lawfully approve the proposed Salinas Dam
Expansion Project unless and until the City prepares a subsequent EIR But even
more important—the City of El Paso de Robles and other communities lie
downstream of Salinas Dam. And there is no possible justification for the elected
public servants on San Luis Obispo's City Council to approve a water supply
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 5
expansion project based on a design that threatens downstream communities
with catastrophic loss of life and property damage from dam failure. The duty to
avoid catastrophic dam failure must overcome the desire to support new growth
and development by expanding the water supply from Salinas Reservoir.
Conclusion
The new seismic analysis shows that the Salinas Reservoir Enlargement
Project, as described and analyzed in the original FEIR,has dam safety problems
and would risk dam failure in the event of a maximum credible earthquake. The
Salinas Reservoir expansion,as proposed,will not meet the standards of the
Division of Safety of Dams. This is an important impact—it involves the
potential for catastrophic downstream flooding. In light of these public safety
problems,the City Council must not approve construction of the reservoir
enlargement project as proposed. Nor can the City of San Luis Obispo approve
an alternate design, until it prepares a subsequent EIR disclosing the true
impacts of the project related to seismicity and faulting and addressing all
impacts of any alternative design intended to address the seismic-impacts.
Finally,the City of El Paso de Robles requests that San Luis Obispo notify
Paso Robles of any upcoming City Council meeting at which the Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project will be considered as an action item. Please send
notice separately to Virginia A. Cahill and Iris P. Yang both of McDonough,
Holland &Allen,555 Capitol Mall,Sacramento,California,95814, and also to Joe
Deakin, Director of Public Works,City Of El Paso De Robles, 1000 Spring Street,
Paso Robles,California, 93446
Very truly yours,
Virgin A. Cahill
Attorney for City of El Paso de Robles
VAC/ENR/jad
Enclosures
cc: Jim App
Iris Yang
Joe Deakin
Gary Henderson
Scott S. Slater
OCO (
• il • ooC; oC: oC: o�o. o_0000.oao_oo.o0:00 ®_0Q.:3 • •
0 so 0 •• • cccQcvccc0c3ccoccc • oos
• ®.0 O_c C c_c0-0-JO •S..0 6.0
c � ' ' ` •
.�• c C'S • 0 _ � � nnnoclo ® . ec:ca.c�r :A. A.
eecic 00 EO 8 a 6d C1 CII 3 1
(Ii
rm rn z
o 0
O -4 m
ti
0
d
�B D
N
r�6T0
.�� / v g
o 7x�
o '
M 2
"Q v V, � 0 d 0�
g3 � o 0 D O r W
c - _ Q r p
a 4 y z .o a U11- v r m
D
N
r O
4h .A O .�
O � r 1�
O O
N
CD
N
0 A A �''^✓'
V ❑ °' ❑ E FF❑S � ❑ �xrr mT fir:-'53�t�'v%��-=t
SP v 219
it
000000
• I• C's � • QQ P � � � � _ 5$ p S' �
• 10 , Q • • o! _� m ❑ � '
seccee0i oil
❑
60
Ellqe SSS e ;:a
HIM I
Ln
Ar
r:
�•-_ - ��� LAS
PROOF OF SERVICE
(City of El Paso de Robles/Salinas)
Petition for Extension of Time Permit 5882 (Application 10216)
I am employed in the County of Sacramento;my business address is 555 Capitol
Mall, Suite 950, Sacramento,California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
the foregoing action.
On August 15, 2000, 1 served the following document(s):
PETITION OF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR PERMIT NO. 5882 (APPLICATION NO. 10216) TO RAISE SALINAS DAM
XXX by mail on the following patty(ies)in said action,in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure§1013a(3),by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in
a designated area for outgoing mail,addressed as set forth below. At McDonough,
Holland&Allen,mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of
postage and is deposited that same day,in the ordinary course of business,in a United
States mailbox in the City of Sacramento,California.
Gary Henderson City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Scott S. Slater,Esq. City of San Luis Obispo
Hatch &Parent
21 East Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara,CA 93101
Robert J. Baiocchi California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy,CA 95971
Lorraine Scarpace,Esq. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1981
Paso Robles,CA 92447
Patrick J.Maloney Monterey County Landowners
Law Offices of Patrick J. Maloney
2425 Webb Avenue,Suite 100
Alameda Island,CA 94501-2922
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct and that document was executed on August 15,
2000.
Julie A. Denker
TWDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ATTORNEYS
JI' .0U
.COOMES.JR. EDWARD J.QUINN.OUINN.JR. KENT W.SILVESTR THOMAS J.NOOUERO
f� gPOTTISW000 MARK GORTON DANIEL V.MARTINEZ STEPHEN M.LERNER
OL
C.POOLE ROBERT R.RUBIN 555 CAPITOL MALL. 9" FLOOR STEVEN A.LAMON JEREMY S.KASH1AN
RICHARD W.OSEN MORGAN T.JONES JAN PATRICK SHERRY KEVIN O.SIEDEL
RICHARD E.BRANDT PATRICIA D.ELLIOTT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96814-4692 PAUL C.ANDERSON
G.RICHARD BROWN WILLIAM C.XILSON.JR. L.STUART LIST
DAVID W.POST IMIS R YANG TELEPHONE: (916N
) 444-3900 JEREMY .MILLSTONE Or O
SUSAN K.SOLING CATHY DEUOEL SALENKO STACEY N.BMESTON V.BARLOWGOPF
DAVID F.BEATTY JACK O.BROWN ANDRE K.CAMPBELL RICHARD W.NICHOLS
MICHAELT.FOGARTY THOMAS L.WILL FACSIMILE: (916) 444-0334 TYSON M.SHOWER ANN TAYLOR SCHWIND
NATALIE E.WEST NANCY P.LEE ERIC N.ROBINSON ZACHARY SMITH
ANN O'CONNELL MARY C.OLDEN INTERNET:www.mha16w.COm SETH MEREWITZ CLEMENT J.DOUGHERTY.JR.
ROBERT W.O'CONNOR EDWARD J.WRIGHT.JR. JAMES CLARKE LINDA R.BECK
JEFFRY R.JONES MICHELLE MARCMETTA KENYON LAURA J.FOWLER RICHARD O.RYPINBKI
T.BRENT HAWKINS STEPHEN L.GOFF OCRALDJ.RAMIZA JOHN R.BRIGGS
JAMES M.RUDDICK MICHAEL K.IWAMIRO September 14 2000 CAROL A. R.TOBIN90N CHRISTINE R.HALL
DAWN W.COLE GLENN W.PETERSON / "KEN R.VICTOR
SHARON DAY ROSEME DAVID L.KROTINE KAREN WHITE MURPHY. RETIRED
SUSAN L.SCXOENIG TIMOTHY P.XAYES DANIEL V.N.BIEOLER. ALFRED E.HOLLAND
CAITLIN E.ROSS BRUCE F.ALLEN
JAMES L.LEET TODD M.OAILEY
VIRGINIA A.CAMILL MARCIA L.AUGSBURGER JANA OU BOIS MARTIN MCDONOUGH
HARRIET A.STEINER NANCY T.TEMPLETON ETHAN WALSH 0916.19091
WILLIAM A.LICWTIO DAVID E.MACCHIAVCLLI RODNEY R.MOT
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
901 P Street
Sacramento,California 95812-0100
Re: Petition for Extension of time on Permit 5882
Comments of City of El Paso de Robles on Draft Decision
Dear Chairman Baggett
The City of El Paso de Robles ("Paso Robles" or "City") submits the
following comments on the State Water Resources Control Board's ("SWRCB"
or "Board") August 24, 2000, Draft Order conditionally granting the City of San
Luis Obispo's petition for extension of time to construct an expanded Salinas
Reservoir and to put the resulting additional stored water to full beneficial use.
PROTECTION OF THE PASO ROBLES GROUNDWATER BASIN
Conditions in the Draft Order address important concerns of the City
regarding the significant adverse impact that an expanded Salinas Reservoir
would have on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin. Specifically, Condition 2
provides that San Luis Obispo's collection to storage that exceeds 23,000 acre-
feet per water year "shall not contribute to overdraft conditions in the Paso
Robles Groundwater Basin." The condition further requires San Luis Obispo to
prepare and submit a reservoir operations plan specifying how the Salinas
Reservoir will be operated to comply with this requirement prior to collecting
any amount exceeding 23,000 AF per water year.
Paso Robles supports the concept of Condition No. 2 and appreciates the
Board's recognition of the need to protect the groundwater basin. However,
there are two problems with Condition 2 as written in the Draft Order. First,
YUBA CITY OFFICE
422 CENTURY PARK DRIVE.SUITE A BAY AREA OFFICE
P.O.BOX'/70 1990 HARRISON STREET.SUITE 1300
YUBA CITY.CALIFORNIA 96992-0776 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
TELEPHONE:(530)074-9761 TELEPHONE:C610)B72-6700
c"�a.N.l• /c•r..c+i-noon FAf,91MI1 FlKlnl R\Y-O.f1Y
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 2
the Condition does not require submission of a reservoir operations plan prior
to construction of the reservoir enlargement, but only prior to collection of
more than 23,000 AF per water year. Because it may be difficult to devise an
operations plan or physical solution that fully protects the groundwater basin,
in order to insure that such a plan or solution actually is feasible, the plan or
physical solution should be presented to the Chief of the Division of Water
Rights (and to Paso Robles for comment) prior to construction of the enlarged
reservoir. After San Luis has already expended $20 million or $30 million to
construct the reservoir, the pressure to approve a plan, even if it does not fully
protect the basin, will be overwhelming. This condition, like Condition 3,
should apply prior to San Luis' proceeding with construction.
Second, the impacts of the Salinas Reservoir on the Paso Robles
Groundwater Basin stem from reduced spills once the storage capacity of the
reservoir exceeds its existing storage capacity. Thus, the trigger for the
operations plan should be further diversions to storage once the amount in
storage exceeds 23,843 AF, the capacity of the existing reservoir given on page
24 of the Draft Order. Requiring the groundwater basin to be fully protected
only when San Luis collects over 23,000 AF to storage In a sib water year,
would leave the basin unprotected from the physical effects of storage of
amounts. greater than the existing reservoir could hold whenever holdover
storage and collection to storage in a given year.result in storage of more than
23,843 AF,but San Luis collects less than 23,000 AF in that year. For example,
carryover storage of 12,000 AF and collection to storage of an additional 20,000
AF in a single water year could result in 32,000 AF of storage, far more than the
existing capacity of the reservoir, and would reduce spills to the Salinas River
and recharge to the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, but would not appear to
require an operations plan to be filed under Condition 2 as written.
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 3
Accordingly, Paso Robles suggests that the first two paragraphs of
Condition 2 be reworded as follows:
San Luis Obispo's eal ems to storage t4at exEeeds of
more than the existing, reservoir capacity of 23,000 acre-feet (AF)
p�shall not contribute to overdraft conditions in the
Paso Robles Groundwater Basin.
e)(E,,,,a:ng .3 999 AP per- water- year- prior to proceeding with
construction for the purpose of enlarging the capacity of Salinas
Reservoir. San Luis Obispo shall submit to the Chief, Division of
Water Rights, for approval and modification, if necessary, a
reservoir operations plan specifying how the Salinas Reservoir
will be operated to comply with this requirement. The plan shall
be provided to the City of Paso Robles for comment.
The plan must include or identify the following: (1) an evaluation
of the extent to which ee4e storage in excess of 23,000 AF
per water- has the potential to reduce groundwater recharge
in the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin, (2) measures San Luis
Obispo will take to avoid reducing, by any amount the annual
recharge of the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin attributable to
Salinas River flow from the watershed area upstream of Salinas
Reservoir whenever ^e"e� e storage exceeds 23,000 AF-peF
tea, (3) the location and type of all measuring devices to
be used, and (4) the frequency of measurement. The plan also
must contain an analysis of how the proposed measures will
avoid project-related reductions to average annual recharge of the
groundwater basin. The plan must be based on water year data
or modeling. A water year begins on October 1 of each year and
ends on September 30 of the succeeding year.
The Draft Order states that the SWRCB will prohibit operation of the
reservoir in a manner that contributes to increased overdraft of the basin, and
that San Luis will be required to develop a reservoir operations plan to this
effect. Draft Order,page 27. The SWRCB must assure that Condition 2 is
written in a way that will accomplish this result.
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 4
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The Draft Order does not adequately address problems arising from The
Salinas Reservoir Enlargement Project Environmental Impact Report (TIR"),
which lacks important information that the SWRCB needs in order to perform
its duties as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA").
A. Analysis of Seismic Safety was Impermissibly Deferred in the EIR.
During the proceedings on San Luis' extension petition, Paso Robles
pointed out that the EIR had been certified before studies to determine the
extent of seismic and dam safety impacts had been concluded. Paso Robles
objected to the failure to include current seismic safety analysis in the certified
EIR on grounds that San Luis was impermissibly deferring analysis of
potentially significant project impacts. (Closing Brief of Paso Robles at pp. 33-
34.) Deferring this analysis also deferred development of mitigation measures,
project alternatives and analysis of potentially significant impacts of such
measures and alternatives.
The EIR determined that seismic impacts were potentially significant, but
concluded that they would be mitigated to insignificance because final dam
engineering would be subject to the approval of the Division of Safety of Dams
("DSOD"). However, it reached this conclusion even before the completion of
the studies showing the extent and significance of the impacts, with no
discussion of the mitigation measures that might be required if the danger of
dam failure were greater than shown in previous studies, or of the impacts of
such mitigation measures.
. While the Draft Order alleges on page 38 that CEQA allows the adoption
of performance standards as mitigation measures, the purported use of an
objective performance standard as mitigation does not allow an agency to
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 5
postpone and omit the analysis of significant impacts themselves. 14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 15126.2(a).
Furthermore, deferring analysis of dam safety impacts and handing off
mitigation to DSOD's approval process would not guarantee analysis or
avoidance of new impacts resulting from whatever concrete mitigation
measures DSOD might require. The CEQA Guidelines state that an EIR "shall"
discuss the significant impacts of a mitigation measure if they are different
from the impacts of the project as proposed. 14 Cal. Code Regs. §
15126.4(a)(1)(D). In Stevens v. City of Glendale, 125 Cal. App. 3d 986 (1981), the
court held that CEQA was violated because responsible agencies and the public
never had an opportunity to review and comment on a mitigation measure
r
developed after an EIR had been circulated for public and agency review. The
court found that both the new mitigation measure and its potentially
significant impacts had evaded review in violation of CEQA.
Here, downstream entities at risk of flooding in the event of catastrophic
dam failure are entitled to a meaningful description of what measures will be
taken to mitigate this danger to a less-than-significant level. And the public,
trustee and responsible agencies are entitled to know what the impacts of these
mitigation measures will be. Under CEQA, "a paramount consideration is the
right of the public to be informed in such a way that it can intelligently weigh
the environmental consequences of any contemplated action and have an
appropriate voice in the formulation of any decision." Mira Monte Homeowners
Ass'n v. County of Ventura, 165 Cal. App. 3d 357,365 (1985).
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 6
B. New Seismic and Dam Safety Information Requires Preparation of
a Subsequent EIR.
New seismic safety and dam design information developed by San Luis'
consultants and submitted by Paso Robles as its proposed Exhibit 32 shows
that Paso Robles' concerns about deferring the required dam safety analysis
were well-founded. See Letter to Hearing Officer John Brown dated August 15,
-2000 ("Paso Robles' letter-motion"), with attachments. The new analysis shows
that, if enlarged in the manner proposed in the EIR, Salinas Reservoir would
not meet current DSOD standards. This information demonstrates that the
seismic impacts are significantly more severe than recognized in the EIR.
Moreover, the major engineering changes that the new information says would
be required to mitigate the greater seismic danger would themselves constitute
a change in the project from what was presented in the current EIR.
As more fully explained in Paso Robles' letter-motion dated August 15,
2000, seeking admission of the new dam safety and project redesign
information, this new information requires the preparation of a subsequent
EIR. Public Resources Code section 21166 and CEQA Guidelines section 15162
require preparation of a subsequent EIR to address new significant impacts or
the increased severity of previously identified significant impacts as a result of:
(1) substantial changes to the project; (2) substantial changes in the
circumstances surrounding the project; or (3) new information that was
unavailable when the EIR was certified. San Luis' new dam safety and project
redesign information triggers all three requirements for preparing a subsequent
EIR.
The Draft Order rejects Paso Robles' request to augment the record with
the documents containing this new information. Draft Order at p. 11. Paso
Robles respectfully requests the Board not to adopt this part of the Draft Order,
but to admit and consider the new dam safety and project redesign
information. We believe that it is the Board's duty as a responsible agency to
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 7
consider relevant new environmental information that becomes available. For
the reasons given in these comments, Paso Robles also supports the California
Sportfishing Protection Alliance's Motion to Require the City of San Luis
Obispo to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and to
Reopen the Hearing Record.
The documents presented to the San Luis City Council as part of the July
18, 2000, Agenda Report show that the computer analyses indicate that for the
case of the raised reservoir level, "the stresses induced in the dam by the
Maximum Credible Earthquake on the Rinconada fault would be much greater
than the strength of the concrete in many portions of the dam. Thus, the
analyses indicate that the dam is not strong enough to withstand strong ground
shaking with the increased load from a raised reservoir." The proposed dam
expansion project cannot be built without a massive concrete buttress or
thickening of the existing concrete arch dam to prevent catastrophic dam
failure in an earthquake.
The SWRCB cannot avoid the necessity of a subsequent EIR by simply
imposing a condition requiring dam design to be approved by DSOD. See
Draft Decision, section 8.4.6, page 39. San Luis' own new documents show that
the expansion project described and analyzed in San Luis' current EIR does not
satisfy DSOD requirements, and the changed project has never been analyzed.
"An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an
informative and legally sufficient EIR." County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71
Cal. App. 3d 185, 192-193 (1977).
The technicalities of DSOD compliance may lie beyond the SWRCB's
expertise, but it is well within the SWRCB's purview to conclude that the
substantial new construction San Luis's consultants describe as necessary to
comply with DSOD requirements may have its own potentially significant
adverse environmental impacts on biological and water resources. For
example, the EIR's analysis of "Impacts Due to Spillway Modification and Dam
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 8
Strengthening" concludes that "Construction activities at the base of the dam
would remove 0.4 acre of freshwater marsh. The loss of this habitat is
considered an adverse, but not significant impact because of the small area
involved compared to similar habitat below the dam." (SWRCB Exh. 3 at 3.7-20
(emphasis added).) In light of the massive concrete buttress or arch support
described in the new seismic safety and dam design information produced by
San Luis's consultants, which involves new construction at the base of the dam,
it is possible that additional freshwater marsh would be affected, or other new
impacts may result. '
Further, the substantial added cost of reinforcing a raised Salinas Dam to
withstand a design earthquake calls into question the adequacy of the
alternatives analysis contained in San Luis' EIR. If dam safety problems raise
the estimated $20 million project cost to $31 million, as San Luis' new seismic
safety and design information suggests, the universe of potentially feasible
water supply alternatives is expanded to include alternatives not fully
considered in the EIR.' If San Luis offered $31 million to acquire and make use
of entitlements to the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project ("SWP"), it
might have found more than the 773 acre feet of available SWP water described
in the EIR as insufficient and, therefore, an infeasible alternative. (See SWRCB
Exh. 3, at 4-14.) SWP water would.avoid the significant impacts arising from
inundating oak woodland at the enlarged reservoir site. See 14 Cal. Code Regs.
' In Mira Monte Homeowners Assn v. County of Ventura,supra,165 Cal.App.3d at 360-361,
the court found that new information showing that a project would encroach upon an additional
quarter acre of wetland was significant and triggered the need for a subsequent EIR. The lead
agency's adoption of mitigation measures addressing the additional wetland impact did not
satisfy CEQA,because neither the impact nor the measures had been subject to public review. Id.
at 365.
2 The substantial cost increase described in San Luis'new seismic safety and dam design
information also calls into question the validity of the conclusion in the Draft Order that"San
Luis can make satisfactory progress on the project;'in part,because"San Luis does not anticipate
problems with its ability to finance all phases of the project." (Draft Order at 18,19.)
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 9
§ 15162(a)(3)(C) (subsequent EIR required where new information shows
mitigation measures or alternatives previously found infeasible to be feasible
and would substantially reduce one or more significant project effects).
In light of the new information, the SWRCB should defer acting on the
extension until after San Luis has prepared a subsequent EIR pursuant to
Public Resources Code section 21166 addressing the substantial new
construction required to make the dam safe and the corresponding impacts on
biological, water and other resources. Or the Board itself should prepare a
subsequent EIR under CEQA Guidelines section 15096 (e) (3).
C. The SWRCB,as Responsible Agency,must Consider the
Adequacy of the Existing EIR and the Necessity for a Subsequent
EIR.
Evidence already in the record shows that important information is
missing from the EIR, making it inadequate for the SWRCB's purposes. See
Closing Brief of Paso Robles at pp. 29-37; Reply Brief of Paso Robles at pp. 16-
18). Moreover, the new dam safety information produced for San Luis
highlights the inadequacies of the seismic analysis in the current EIR and
demonstrates that a subsequent document is required.
It is hard to square the Draft Order's assertion that the SWRCB must
conclusively presume the adequacy of San Luis' EIR, see e.g. Draft Order at p.
22 (first full paragraph), at p. 39 (Section 8.4.6)), with the CEQA Guidelines
provision addressing the circumstance where "a responsible agency believes
that the final EIR or negative declaration prepared by the lead agency is not
adequate for use by the responsible agency . . . ." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15096(e)
(emphasis added). This Guideline suggest that a responsible agency does
evaluate the adequacy of an EIR for its use.
CEQA gives responsible agencies several options when they are asked to
approve a project based on an EIR that fails to provide all the information
needed for that responsible agency to approve the project and make its
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 10
findings. If the EIR is inadequate, the responsible agency may: (1) take the
issue to court within 30 days after the lead agency files a notice of
determination (which San Luis Obispo has not yet done); (2) prepare a
subsequent EIR if permissible under section 15162; or (3) assume the lead
agency role pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15052(a)(3). CEQA
Guidelines §§ 15096(e), 15162-15164. Only if a responsible agency does none of
these is it deemed to have waived any objection to the adequacy of the EIR. 14
Cal. Code Regs. § 15096(e)(2). Even then, the responsible agency is to reach its
own conclusions on whether and how to approve the project. 14 Cal. Code
Regs. § 15096(a). If it does not have sufficient information to make the findings
required by CEQA Guidelines section 15092, the agency cannot approve the
project. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15092.
The Board's assertion that, as a responsible agency, it cannot evaluate the
adequacy of San Luis' EIR makes no sense' and contradicts the plain language
of CEQA Guidelines section 15096(e). Public Resources Code section 21167.2
and section 21167.3 come into play only after the lead agency has approved its
project, and the statute of limitations on a CEQA lawsuit has been triggered.
Until the statute has run, the responsible agency itself could challenge the EIR.
Moreover, there is a key exception to the presumption of adequacy where
circumstances warrant preparation of a subsequent EIR under Section 21166.
Public Resources Code section 21167.2 states that "the environmental
impact report shall be conclusively presumed to comply with the provisions of
this division for purposes of its use by responsible agencies, unless the
provisions of Section 21166 are applicable." Pub. Res. Code § 21167.2
3. If a lead agency submitted an EIR comprised of 100 blank pages with a cover sheet titled
"EIR",the SWRCB,as a responsible agency,would hardly be compelled to presume that the EIR
is adequate. Similarly,if an EIR's impact analyses repeatedly stated that impact studies would be
done in the future and any necessary mitigation measures would be developed and approved by.
the relevant trustee and responsible agencies,the SWRCB would be unable to make the requisite
findings. Yet this is exactly the deferred approach to CEQA review that San Luis Obispo asks the
SWRCB to embrace. The SWRCB should reject this approach.
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 11
(emphasis added). Section 21166 applies here, providing another reason that
the EIR cannot be presumed to be adequate for the SWRCB's purposes.
Section 21166 requires preparation of a subsequent EIR if changes
proposed in the project require major revisions of the EIR, if changes in project
circumstances require major revisions to the EIR, or if new information
becomes available. Pub. Res. Code § 21166. These circumstances exist, and the
new information has been provided to the Board, a responsible agency, prior to
its approval of the project. The Board should ask San Luis as lead agency to
prepare a subsequent EIR, or the Board could do so itself, as a responsible
agency. CEQA Guidelines, §15096(e)(3).
The Board, as a responsible agency, has an obligation to decide if San Luis'
EIR is adequate for the Board's purposes and whether a subsequent EIR is
required. The Board should not pretend that it is bound by conclusive
presumptions that do not apply to the circumstances of this proceeding.
D. The EIR Reveals that the Project would have Several Significant
Impacts Lasting up to 15 Years,so the SWRCB is required to
Adopt Statements of Overriding Considerations before
Approving the Project.
The Draft Order states that "it is unnecessary for the SWRCB to adopt any
findings of overriding considerations for unmitigated significant impacts."
(Draft Order at 37.) This is simply incorrect as a matter of CEQA law. Public
Resources Code section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 through
15093 require a public agency to make findings of overriding considerations
whenever significant impacts within the agency's jurisdiction will remain after
mitigation. The EIR identifies seven significant biological impacts that cannot
be mitigated to less-than-significant levels for various periods of time, up to 10
to 15 years. (See SWRCB Exh. 3 at ES-18, 20-22, 26.) For example, the summary
table at page ES-18 concludes that impacts to botanical resources in the 395-acre
inundation zone will be significant until the mitigation results in 146 acres of
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14, 2000
Page 12
new or enhanced woodlands, which is "expected to require about 10 to 15
years." On page ES-26, the EIR concludes that the short-term cumulative
impact on biological resources will be "significant until the mitigation is
successful", a rather indefinite period. The Draft Order itself states that the
Final EIR recognizes that the impacts to certain habitats are significant until the
various replacement habitats become established. Draft Order, p. 37. It does
not matter that these impacts may not be permanent. CEQA requires that EIRs
give "due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects" of
proposed projects. 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.2(a).
Before granting San Luis' extension petition, the SWRCB would have to
adopt statements of overriding considerations for all significant impacts within
the Board's jurisdiction, even if they are short-term impacts. Pub. Res. Code §
21081; 14 Cal Code Regs. §§ 15091, 15093. The SWRCB would have to revise its
Draft Order to comply with this requirement.
CONCLUSION
The Draft Order addresses Paso Robles' concerns about the impact of an
expanded Salinas Reservoir on the Paso Robles Groundwater Basin and
attempts to resolve them by Condition 2. The Board must assure that the
wording of the Condition accomplishes the intent of the Board to prohibit
operation of the reservoir in a manner that contributes to increased overdraft of
the basin.
The order fails to overcome the inadequacy of the EIR's seismic impact
analysis. This inadequacy cannot be remedied by conditioning project
approval upon some subsequent approval by DSOD. Such an approach
threatens to make the dam expansion project a fait accompli at a point when
obvious potential impacts of redesigning the project to obtain DSOD approval
have never been considered pursuant to CEQA.
Arthur G. Baggett,Jr.
Acting Chair
State Water Resources Control Board
September 14,2000
Page 13
In this case, the SWRCB should decline to approve the extension petition
and should continue this proceeding to allow San Luis to prepare a subsequent
EIR providing the information that the SWRCB needs to understand the
full environmental consequences of granting the petition. The public and other
responsible and trustee agencies need and have a right to this information
before the project is approved.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Very truly yours,
Virginia Cahill
Attorney for the City of
El Paso de Robles
VAC/jad
cc: Service List
PROOF OF SERVICE
(City of El Paso de Robles/Salinas)
Petition for Extension of Time Permit 5882 (Application 10216)
I am employed in the County of Sacramento; my business address is 555 Capitol
Mall, Suite 950,Sacramento,California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to
the foregoing action.
On September 14, 2000, I served the following document(s):
PETITION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME ON PERMIT 5882
COMMENTS OF CITY OF EL PASO DE ROBLES ON DRAFT DECISION
XXX by mail on the following party(ies)in said action,in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure§1013a(3),by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope in a
designated area for outgoing mail,addressed as set forth below. At McDonough, .
Holland&Allen,mail placed in that designated area is given the correct amount of
postage and is deposited that same day,in the ordinary course of business,in a United
States mailbox in-the City of Sacramento,California.
Gary Henderson City of San Luis Obispo
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Scott S. Slater, Esq. City of San Luis Obispo
Hatch&Parent
21 East Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara,CA 93101
Robert J. Baiocchi California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
P.O. Box 357
Quincy,CA 95971
Lorraine Scarpace,Esq. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 1981
Paso Robles,CA 92447
Patrick J. Maloney Monterey County Landowners
Law Offices of Patrick J. Maloney
2425 Webb Avenue,Suite 100
Alameda Island,CA 94501-2922
PROOF OF SERVICE
(City of El Paso de Robles/Salinas)
- Petition for Extension of Time Permit 5882 (Application 10216)
Page 2
PERSONAL DELIVERY
Katherine Mrowka
State Water Resources Control Board
Division of Water Rights
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing is true and correct and that his document was executed on September 14,
2000.
Julie A. Denker
P
L ' McDoNoucx, HoLLA -n & ALLCN
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
JO E.COOMES.JR. EDWARD J.OUINN.JR. ATTORNEYS DAVID E MACCHIAVELLI RODNEY R.MOV
O 3POTTISWOOD MARK GORTON KENT W.SILVESTER THOMAS J.NOGIIL'ROLA
DC C.POOLE ROBERT R.RUBIN DANIEL V.MARTINEZ STEPHEN M.LERNER
RICHARD W.CGCN MORGAN T.JONES SSB CAPITOL MALL. 91" FLOOR STEVEN A.LAMON JEREMY S.KASHIAN
RICHARD E.BRANDT PATRICIA D.CWOTT JAN PATRICK SHERRY KEVIN D.SIEGEL
G.RICHARD BROWN WILLIAM C.NILSON.JR. SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 95814-4692 PAUL C.ANDERSON
DAVID W.POST IRIS P.YANG L.STUART LIST
SUSAN K.EDLING CATHY DEU6EL SALEMKO JEREMY R.MILLSTONE OF COUNSEL
DAVID F.BEAm JACK D.BROWN TELEPHONE: (916) 444-3900 STACEY N.SHESTON V.BARLOW GOFF
MICHAEL T.FOGARTY THOMAS L.HILL AMORE K.CAMPBELL RICHARD W.NICHOLS
NAI.IIE E.WEST NANCY P.LEE FACSIMILE:C916) 444-6134 TYSON M.SHOWER ANN TAYLOR SCMWIND
ANN O'CONAELL MARY E.OLDEN ERIC N.ROBINSON ZACHARY SMITH
ROBERT W.O'CONNOR EDWARD J.WRIGHT.JR. INTERNET:www.mhalaw.com SETH MCREWITZ CLEMENT J.DOUGHERTY.JR.
JEFPRY R.JONES MICHELLE MARCMETTA KENYON JAMES CLARKE LINDA R.BECK
T.BRENT MAWKINS MICHELE M.CLARK _ LAURA J.FOWLER RICHARD O.RYPINSKI
JAMES M.RUDDICK STEPHEN L.DOFF GERALD J.RAMIZA JOHN R.BRIGGS
DAWN H.COLE MICHAEL K.IWAMIRO August 15 2000 CLARISSA A.ROBINSON CHRISTINE R.MALL
SHARON DAY ROSEME GLENN W.PETERSON J CAROL R.VICTOR
SUSAN L SCMOENIG DAVID L.KROTIME KAREN WHITE MURPHY RETIRED
JAMES L.LEET TIMOTHY P.MAYES DANIEL V.M.BICOLER ALFRED C.MOLLAND
VIRGINIA A.CAMILL TODD M.SAILET CAITLIN E.ROSS BRUCE F.ALLEN
HARRIET A.STEINER MARCIA L AUGSBURCER JAN^GU BOTS MARTIN MCOONOUGH
WILLIAM A.LICMTIO NANCY T.TEMPLETON "MAN WALSM II9I3•19871
Mr.John Brown,Hearing Officer
State Water Resources Control Board
901 P Street
Sacramento,CA 95814
Re: Petition of City of San Luis Obispo for extension of time for Permit
No. 5882 (Application No. 10216) to raise Salinas Dam
Dear Hearing Officer Brown:
The City of Paso Robles hereby submits the enclosed documents prepared
by or for the City of San Luis Obispo and moves that they be accepted into
evidence in the matter of the Petition of the City of San Luis Obispo for Extension
of time for Permit No.5882. The documents contain relevant new information
concerning the seismic and dam safety impacts of raising the level of Salinas
Reservoir. They conclude that if the storage capacity of Salinas Reservoir were
increased,the existing Salinas Dam would not be strong enough to withstand the
design earthquake on the Rinconada fault.
The documents, recently obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo,
include a July 18,2000,City of San Luis Obispo Council Agenda Report("Council
Agenda Report") with two attachments: (1)Executive Summary of"Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project Dam Safety Evaluation" ("Executive Summary") and
(2)July 5,2000,letter from San Luis Obispo's dam expansion consultant,URS
Greiner Woodward Clyde,to San Luis Obispo's water division manager,Gary
Henderson("URS Letter'). True and correct copies of the Council Agenda
Report and the two attachments are enclosed herewith and marked as Paso
Robles Exhibit 32.
The Executive Summary of the Dam Safety Evaluation states that the
results of the computer analysis indicate that for the case of the raised reservoir
level, "the stresses induced in the dam by the Maximum Credible Earthquake on
the Rinconada fault would be much greater than the strength of the concrete in
many portions of the dam As such,the analyses indicate that the dam is not
strong enough to withstand strong ground shaking with the increased load from
a raised reservoir. The dam,under the proposed reservoir raise,does not satisfy
YUBA CITY OFFICE
422 CENTURY PARK DRIVE.SUITE A YAY AREA OFFICE
P.O.BOR 996 1999 HARRISON STREET.SUITE 1]00
YUBA CITY.CALIFORNIA 96992-0776 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94BI6
TELEPHONE:(620)SIA-9961 TELCPHONE:(610)273-6100
FACSIMILE:(630)691-0990 FACSIMILE:(610)639-9104
John Brown, Hearing Officer
August 15,2000
Page 2
modem seismic performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by
DSOD [Division of Safety of Dams]." (Executive Summary,pp. 2-3.)
The URS letter suggests two conceptual approaches for seismically
strengthening Salinas Dam,each of which involves a major redesign of the
proposed project and neither of which was discussed in the Salinas Reservoir
Enlargement Project EIR.
During the hearings on San Luis' extension petition, Paso Robles pointed
out that San Luis Obispo improperly certified the FEIR before completing the
necessary studies of structural and seismic safety issues. (Closing Brief of City of
El Paso de Robles,pp. 33-34.) Documents in the Hearing Record established that
final conclusions regarding seismic impacts were not yet drawn,and that the
conclusion in section 3.2.3.2.2 at 3.2-20 of the FEIR that seismic impacts would be
reduced to less than significant was premature. The newly recognized seismic
problems and need to redesign the proposed project confirm that the EIR
prepared for the project is legally inadequate to support Water Board approval.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21166,the new information
produced by San Luis Obispo not only shows that the prior EIR is inadequate but
triggers San Luis' duty to prepare a subsequent EM A subsequent EIR is
required to disclose the previously unanalyzed significant seismic impact of the
dam expansion project and to analyze the impacts resulting from the major
redesign of the project that would be necessary to address this impact. The duty
to prepare a subsequent EIR arises when any of the following three events
occurs:
(1) substantial changes are-proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the EIR;
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the environmental impact report;or
(3) new information,which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as
complete becomes available.
Pub. Res. Code§21166. Although only one of these three events need occur to
require preparation of a subsequent EIR,the new seismic and dam safety
information would require preparation of a subsequent EIR under any of the
three tests.
John Brown, Hearing Officer
August 15, 2000
Page 3
First, the new seismic analysis produced in June and July 2000 constitutes
new information that was not known,and could not have been known when San
Luis certified its EIR in 1998,and thus triggers Public Resources Code section
21166(c). San Luis even calls the new seismic data "new information." (See
Council Agenda Report at 4.)
CEQA Guideline section 15162 clarifies that the type of new information
that triggers the requirement to prepare a subsequent EIR includes information
showing that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or showing that significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR- The new information
in Paso Robles Exhibit 32 shows that if the dam is expanded as San Luis
proposes, it"would not be strong enough to withstand the design earthquake on
the Rinconada fault." (Council Agenda Report at 4). Although previous seismic
studies indicated that an expanded dam would be stable during the design
earthquake,"current analyses show that the dam would not be strong enough to
withstand the design earthquake." (Executive Summary at 3.) Accordingly,
"[t]he dam with a raised reservoir level does not satisfy modem seismic
performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by DSOD."
(Executive Summary at 5.)' This information establishes that the project as
described in the FEIR will have significant seismic impacts not discussed in the
FEIR and substantially more severe than acknowledged in the section of the FEIR
dealing with seismicity and faulting.
Second,the new data shows that earthquake forces acting on the dam are
likely to be 70 percent greater than the forces previously assumed. (See Council
Agenda Report.at 3;Executive Summary at 4-5.) The increase in the severity of
the expected earthquake forces constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken,triggering Public Resources Code
section 21166(b).
Third,the major new construction proposed to address the greater
earthquake forces would transform the dam expansion project into something
substantially different from the project proposed by San Luis and analyzed in its
EIR. The EIR analyzed installation of drum gates at the dam's existing spillway,
without any strengthening of the concrete arch dam structure. The new
information shows that either the dam thickness must be substantially
increased—an approach that might not be technically feasible—or a massive
concrete buttress must be constructed to support the downstream side of the
dam. (See Council Agenda Report at 3;June 30,2000,URS letter.) Either .
approach constitutes a substantial change to San Luis'proposed project that
would cause potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that require
major revisions to the existing EIR,triggering Public Resources Code section
21166(a).)
John Brown, Hearing Officer
August 15,2000
Page 4
The URS Letter identifies a list of"CONS"for each approach to addressing
the project's seismic safety problems. Building a massive concrete buttress
would give the dam a "significantly different"appearance, (URS Letter at 4),
which raises new aesthetic impact issues. Aggregate required to make the
buttress concrete "can not be produced on site and will need to be imported",
(id.),which raises new traffic and air quality issues. Building a buttress.would
prevent installation of the proposed spillway drum gates,which"could restrict
reservoir operation flexibility." (Id.) This raises questions about all resource
impacts affected by the dam's proposed operational regime,including harm to
downstream water users, like Paso Robles. None of these potential adverse
environmental impacts have been analyzed and subjected to public review and
comment, as required by CEQA. Accordingly, the Water Board may not lawfully
approve the proposed project pursuant to CEQA unless and until San Luis
Obispo prepares a subsequent EIR.
Procedural Considerations
The documents submitted as Paso Robles Exhibit 32 did not exist in
October 1999,when the Water Board conducted three days of hearings on San
Luis Obispo's petition. The Board adjourned the hearing on October 18, 1999,
and the record was closed effective January 10,2000. (Transcript,October 18,
1999, at page 791,lines 22-23.) The seismic safety studies and project redesign
options were not presented until June and July 2000. Thus,they could not have
been brought to the Board's attention until now.
Section 768 of the State Board's regulations allow a party to petition for
reconsideration of an order of the Board where there is relevant evidence which,
in the exercise of reasonable diligence,could not have been produced. Such
relevant evidence should be admitted before the Board issues a decision,so that
it can be taken into account in reaching a correct decision in the first place. The
Council Agenda Report was prepared by San Luis Obispo's own staff,so it
should come within one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule,including Evidence
Code section 1220,admissions of a party. The URS Letter that San Luis' own
staff attached to the Council Agenda Report also should come within one of the
hearsay exceptions, such as Evidence Code section 1221,adopted admissions.
The City of El Paso de Robles thus requests that the State Board reopen the
record in the matter of the City of San Luis Obispo's Petition for Extension of
Time and accept Paso Robles Exhibit 32 into evidence. Enclosed are 6 copies of
the exhibit. Copies of this letter with the enclosure have been served on all
parties.
John Brown,Hearing Officer
August 15, 2000
Page 5
Conclusion
The State Board should reopen the record to admit the enclosed
documents containing relevant new information about the seismic danger posed
by San Luis'proposal to enlarge Salinas Reservoir. The new seismic analysis
shows that the Salinas Reservoir Enlargement Project,as discussed in the FEIR .
and presented during the hearings of October 1999,has.dam safety problems that
threaten catastrophic failure in the event of a maximum credible earthquake. In
light of these public safety problems and the failure of the FEIR to address them
adequately,the State Board cannot approve the extension of time to permit
construction of the reservoir enlargement project as proposed. Nor can the
Board,or San Luis Obispo,approve an alternate design,until San Luis prepares a
subsequent E1R disclosing the impacts of the project related to seismicity and
faulting and addressing all impacts of any alternative design intended to address
the seismic impacts.
Very truly yours,
Virginia A. Cahill
Attorney for City of El Paso de Robles
Enclosure
cc: James App
Service List
1EETINGAGENDA
' � v' °`
COUNCIL MEMORAI� ITEM #
November 8, 2000 t�'r, : r,;L ❑c�^^a
To: Mayor Settle and City Council r : : ='r ❑Fr, ;
C E-.:.1 ❑R Gil
Via: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer t�z NF twit DiR
Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer 1 `'"u F�,�, ❑PERS DIR
From: John E. Moss, Utilities Director
Subject: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project Approval and City of Paso Robles request
for delay in action.
The City Council will be considering formal approval of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
as Council agenda item #1 on November 9, 2000. This project approval under CEQA and filing
of the subsequent Notice of Determination has been mandated upon the City by the State Water
Resources Control Board to be completed no later than 5:00pm November 13, 2000. Failure to
do so will result in the forfeiture of the City's rights to the expanded capacity of the Salinas
Reservoir.
The City of Paso Robles will be requesting that the City Council not approve the project as
recommended, rather the City should petition the SWRCB for an extension of time relative to
this condition and that Paso Robles would support such a request to the SWRCB. The purpose
of the time extension would be to allow the City time to complete additional seismic engineering
analysis and complete any additional environmental work as may be required. While we should
accept this suggestion as an offer of cooperation by the city of Paso Robles, there is no
mechanism to make such a requested time extension and doing so would result in the loss of our
water rights.
The Council may wish to assure Paso Robles representatives that the City has no.intention of
completing a project that would not be seismically safe, and that should additional studies
indicate that seismic reinforcement is necessary to such an extent as to require additional
environmental review, the City will complete that review at that time. We wish to remain
positive in our hopes for cooperation with the Paso Robles, however cannot at this time honor
their request for delaying action on the project.
If you have any questions regarding this memo or Paso Robles request, please contact John Moss
at x205 or Gary Henderson at x237.
c: Gary Henderson
Jeff Jorgensen
!,:0V- 9.-0.0 THU 15 : 14 Judith Mart .-ida Ie C.FP 8055413677 P. 01
*CTING AGENDA
u 'E '�-°—. Q,-°0 . IIEM # 1
6.
M6-Sal II S:
COUNCIL ❑CDD DIR
C9 SAO ❑FIN DIR
BIACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF
. O'ATTORNEY ❑PW DIR
� '� '„ •• C•}'CLERKIORIG ❑POLICE CHF
?At TEAM ❑REC DIR
�-rAZE E
�UTIL DIR
L9�,JQ i 8,mt F ❑PERS DIR
Pr'QVidj rkg.MQTOW. 0,tor.to.;SlaQ'ts 001of g.#o. c:aose 5t.0 to; ✓: G.N y���'
grov+v:apd spra I.; GXgWth enc sprl heads ditectly to a'Whole
::rapge, f�� robleisns'th step tlie;c adat�on f h
4f h�o �
ei1` irpritriet we all �epi�>� '4�pogar;th'eb1ity to live at.�ill:.
fou would hv 'ta o•lse,'def;tli� lf". h� 6141d,not to be .
:• OMPL ;
iJ ' awAre ol'thi AWA."
td
... ..
cng,the water suo01 ' ti, bt'01 ' ,cos,� svme' deaf; dyinb,`
ri Ond people to st hip thei'l.foet 66se.t>iey Igmot. tly.
F • r-efu$e tp,•learn frofn'thC past, lint oo,wbgt%
Y.
can guar' t tee:yola.t iSt' If,yobi 6!0 actively help stop,
grQwt cud spxawrt' who.will? Af yo p d,p •t'start doing it poW;
theta wtieo? 'Wtrere'one' Ivp thohglitiio�vt was necessary to
' the weil�-bel'ng of ao ekpafiding;e*'000 ktyo time we see, that 411;,
,expuding eronorri,y'ALWA1�' :i� ,nj 5.;at cb t in the
; 1tvi>r01.1ent'. CeetWo y:you-mmt reoRte Wt geowth,is far
• .+:•: r
frtniles•iablen`d.f f pnn bier tare #s s,� .di mct'analogy
:between coa"t',r od biaman;gr.owt.h: .CRncer growth;goes on.
; �'. � ��vltkrQiit 'regard'•to.•t1ie �'esource�; it.c�#�.su�''es;�o�r�the �yastcit; '
geoerates� two fuh(laioeii.tal fods Aodt cancer. These are the
n
s sAIU,e;t�'a A! ai�e.rrta), l`s(Cts about . 't1#iarl gz'owth. .Certainly,
104 rtAi st; >I'eolize y #tow',thot o�jy"o su.s 411joble.b4ma,n' vin
tyle-Will,peritiit asQ go :011bt0,Ilb11'otq s 6 viable
species;:� a' it fgr,tbe yet ovi1 .botp $p they hI vo the obapce to ':
" , gpeil ce lii a self That s'the,§tr bngest A rgulment. we bati,e
for:c, 6erv, :000
,.. RECEIVED
C;g�Oon
'Phare-4, 291.KenfI ckyAvenueeSa0,;—,U (?Oopo, C.A. s34 s. NOV '9,- 2000
.+ ;. ', , .•80��d5=9424. , , . . . ,
,.. SLO Gi"rY:.DLERK
FIOV-09-00 01 a39 PM Bailcv Modical Eno 805538161 P. 01
i
�1
MEETING' AGE A
DATE: If�Q�O ITEM
; ..
E�
John Ewan
Allen Settle &KrOUNCIL ❑CDD P19
r ✓- 1:1 FIN CI.^.
Dave Romero ❑FIs--C'NEF
Ken Schwartz I F./ .: _7 ❑PW DIR
✓ ' ❑POLICE C'F
Jan Marx ✓ ❑ggEEC DIR
IABtTIL DIR
fKt0—VN E, ❑PERSUR 1&
feru�er5ov,
Please consider that you must mitigate for the loss of riparian
habitat and wetlands before you give the go aheadn the
expansiun of the Salinas dam.
Votc NO on the dun expansion!
Thank you,
Kelly Lewis
Los Osos, CA.
is
Y
i
t . .
i .
RECEIVED
NOV g - 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
0
p
counck
July ia, z000
agcnoa Repom
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Moss, Utilities Directof �/j"�
Prepared By: Gary Hendezrn Water Division Manager 401%
SUBJECT: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project -.Dam Safety Evaluation
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file report.
DISCUSSION
The Salinas Dam was constructed in 1941/42 by the federal government to provide water for
Camp San Luis Obispo and secondarily to provide water for the City of San Luis Obispo. The
dam is a 135-foot high concrete arch-shaped facility which has a current maximum storage
capacity of 23,843 acre feet. The facilities are under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) but are operated by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District.. Since the dam is federally owned, it does not currently fall under the
jurisdiction of the State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).
The City of San Luis Obispo has rights to all the water diverted from the reservoir under state
water rights Permit 5882. The Corps.is also listed as a co-permittee on the water rights permit
but no water is utilized for federal purposes.
The City has proposed expanding the storage capacity of the reservoir for many years by
installing 19-foot high spillway gates in the existing dam. With the installation of the gates, the
storage capacity would be increased to 41,792 acre feet.with a resulting increase in safe annual
yield of 1,650 acre feet.
Since the dam no longer serves any federal purpose, the Corps has stipulated that prior to
initiation of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project, the facility would have to be transferred to
a local agency. In California, dams owned by local agencies are under the jurisdiction of the
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams, and must meet current
dam safety standards. As such, a dam safety evaluation has been performed to address dam
safety issues, such as safety during earthquakes and flooding. Based on this requirement, the
City contracted with URS (formerly Woodward-Clyde) to evaluate the safety of the dam
considering the proposed reservoir expansion project and the ability of the dam structure to meet
current state standards with the increased water storage.
. S
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Dam Safety Evaluation
Page 2
Previous Studies
Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed an analysis of the feasibility of expanding the reservoir
storage capacity in February 1989 (revised in December 1990). The study analyzed the seismic
stability and the hydrology associated with the design flood flow event (Probable Maximum
Flood). The analysis was based on design standards at the time and on an understanding.of local
faults at that time. The analysis indicated that the dam expansion project could meet seismic
standards with minor improvements to the facility. The analysis did indicate that the design
flood would overtop the dam for both the existing condition and with the spillway gates installed.
The flow over the dam could potentially erode the area at the base of the dam and therefore the
report indicated that armoring (concrete) at the dam base would be necessary.
Updated Studies
The recently completed analysis for seismic loads and the flood flows associated with the
Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) have been updated based on the current standards and DSOD
requirements. Both the PMF and seismic loads have increased as discussed below.
Probable Maximum Flood
The PMF has been updated based on the new requirements which were issued in 1998. The
current PMF rainfall event equates to 26.0" in 72 hours. The previous analysis was for 25.2" for
72 hours. With this increase in rainfall, the total flow into the reservoir will increase by about
2%_ The new analysis predicts that 108,000 acre feet would flow into the reservoir. This is an
extremely large,amount of water and would fill the entire capacity of the existing reservoir 4'/z
times. With these flows, the existing dam and the modified dam with spillway gates installed
would be overtopped.. Therefore, armoring of the dam base is still recommended to prevent
erosion in the unlikely event of a storm of this magnitude.
Earthquake Event
A number of faults have been identified which could potentially impact the Salinas Dam. These
faults were evaluated to estimate which fault would generate the largest loads on the structure.
The Rinconada fault, as in the previous analysis, was judged to be the controlling fault for
seismic analysis. Seismic design criteria are updated as new earthquakes occur and our
understanding of resulting seismic forces increases. An earthquake on the Rinconada fault is the
controlling event (same as assumed in 1989), however, the earthquake forces that are predicted
from a fault rupture have increased by approximately 70% for the reasons discussed_below.
In 1989, the activity (historic movement) of the Rinconada fault was reviewed with respect to
deciding if the fault was active and therefore capable of generating a damaging earthquake. The
evidence was inconclusive, but to be conservative for the purposes of dam safety, the fault was
assumed to be capable of generating a design earthquake. The ground motions from the
earthquake were selected in the middle range of motions(for known active faults ground motions
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Dam Safety Evaluation
Page 3
are selected towards the upper range, however, it was judged that a conservative assumption
regarding the activity of the fault had already been made and that higher ground motions were
judged to be overly conservative at that time).
The Rinconada fault has three separate segments and the previous study assumed that a fault
rupture would include up to 50% of the fault length. This assumption was consistent with design
standards at that time. In 1992, an earthquake occurred near Landers, California which has
resulted in revisions to seismic design for this project. The Landers earthquake occurred on a
fault with three separate sections and demonstrated that a fault rupture could jump to several
segments. The potential for multiple fault segment ruptures and additional evidence of fault
activity have resulted in an increase of the assumed seismic loads by approximately 70% (0.65g
to 1.10 g). This increase results in a significant increase in the potential seismic induced stresses
in the dam.
The structural computer analysis of the dam indicates that the existing dam (without the spillway
gates) would be capable of withstanding the design earthquake and satisfies modem seismic
performance evaluation criteria. The analysis also indicates that"the dam is not strong enough to
withstand strong ground shaking with the increased load from a raised reservoir." Remedial
measures will be necessary to strengthen the dam prior to installation of the spillway gates.
Strengthening Alternatives
There are two alternatives which could be utilized to strengthen the dam for the increased water
storage. The two alternatives are discussed in more detail in Attachment 2 to this report The
potentially least costly alternative would involve placement of an additional layer(about equal to
the existing dam thickness) of concrete on the downstream face of the dam. While the costs may
be less, there are questions concerning the "bond" strength between the existing concrete and the
new concrete which may not be acceptable to DSOD. This method of strengthening has been
approved by DSOD for a dam of this type in California, however, Salinas Dam has potentially
greater seismic loading and therefore it may be difficult to receive approval. The estimated cost
range for this alternative is $5.6 to $8.5 million which is in addition to other project related costs
(i.e. spillway gate,recreation facilities relocation, environmental mitigations, etc.).
The second alternative involves the placement of a"buttress"against the downstream face of the
dam. The buttress would be constructed using "roller compacted concrete" (RCC) and would be
a stepped wedge structure which would transform the current arch dam into a curved gravity
structure. This method was successfully used on the Gilbraltar Dam near Santa Barbara to
strengthen the existing concrete arch dam. This type of remedial strengthening measure has been
used on a number of dams in California and has been accepted previously by DSOD, therefore
this altemative would likely gain relatively easy approval from DSOD. The estimated cost for
this alternative, excluding other project costs, would range between$7.2 and $11.0 million.
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Dam Safety Evaluation
Page 4
Nest Steps
The current draft dam safety evaluation report has not been submitted to the State Division of
Safety of Dams or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for their review. The seismic design
criteria for the structural analysis was presented to DSOD during development of the computer
model. DSOD concurred with the criteria and assumptions to be used in the computer model
runs. Following the presentation of the information to the City Council, staff will transmit the
reports to DSOD and the Corps for their review and comment.
The previously approved concrete core sampling component of the study has been placed on hold
pending review of the analysis by the Corps and DSOD. The coring may not be necessary or
may be reduced in scope based on review of this recent analysis by the state. Funding for the
concrete coring and strength testing is currently included in the contract with URS.
Based on this new information, staff will be preparing a thorough review and update of all the
alternative water supply projects which could meet the city's projected future water supply
deficit based on growth identified in the General Plan. In addition, the City is still waiting for a
decision on our water rights permit hearing relative to increasing the storage capacity at Salinas
Reservoir. Staff anticipates that a decision on the water rights permit should be received within
the next several months. Staff will prepare the complete evaluation of water supply projects and
strategies for Council consideration this fall.
Summary
The updated seismic evaluation of the Salinas Dam indicates that the existing facility meets
current seismic design criteria. The analysis concludes that if the reservoir storage capacity were
increased, the dam would .not be strong enough to withstand the design earthquake on the
Rinconada fault. Remedial strengthening measures are available to safely allow the expansion of
the reservoir to move forward, and would likely cost an additional $5.6 to $11.0.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Executive Summary of"Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Dam Safety Evaluation"
2. Correspondence titled "Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project — Phase 1, Dam Engineering,
Dam Strengthening Alternatives"
On-File in Council Office:
1. Complete 2 Volume Report"Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project—Dam Safety Evaluation"
Attachment 1
Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
Dam Safety Evaluation
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
Salinas Dam is a 135400t high concrete arch-shaped dam, located in San Luis Obispo
County on the Salinas River, about 9 miles southeast of the town of Santa Margarita,
California. The reservoir at the dam is referred to as Santa Margarita Lake. The dam is
owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and was constructed by the Corps between
late 1941 through early 1942. The original purpose of the dam was to provide wartime
water supply to Camp San Luis Obispo. The dam was constructed in accordance with the
engineering standards of practice at the time, and visually appears to be in good shape.
The County of San Luis Obispo currently operates the reservoir for the Corps of
Engineers, to provide municipal water supply to the City of San Luis Obispo (City) and
for recreation. The reservoir provides approximately 70 percent of the water supply to
the City, and along with the Whale Rock Reservoir, is one of two surface water reservoirs
providing water for the City's use.
REASONS FOR STUDY
The City is considering expanding the capacity of Santa Margarita Reservoir to meet the
growth proposed in the City's General Plan. The current capacity of the reservoir of
23,840 acre-feet(af) would be increased by 17,950 of following completion of the
expansion project The "safe yield"(the amount of water which would be available for
use each year through a critical drought period) would increase by approximately 1650
acre-feet per year. A separate Environmental Impact Report has been prepared .
describing the project, impacts from the project, and proposed mitigation measures.
The layout of the dam includes a concrete-lined spillway channel on the north(right) side
of the dam to convey flood flows past the dam. The crest elevation of the spillway(the
spillway's highest location) is approximately 20 feet below the top of the dam.
Therefore,to store additional water, spillway gates or other barriers would be installed at
the spillway crest location. With the gates in place the reservoir level would be
approximately 19 feet higher than currently exists when the reservoir is M. The dam
would not be increased in height
As part of the proposed reservoir expansion, dam ownership would be transferred from
the Corps of Engineers to local control and the safety of the dam would therefore come
under state jurisdiction. The California,Department of Water Resources, Division of
Safety of Dams(DSOD) is responsible for dam safety for all jurisdictional non-federal
dams in California. The DSOD takes a careful and stringent review of dam safety, _
because the consequences of the failure of a dam can be considerable. They have
developed general guidelines for use in assessing dam safety during an earthquake or
flood.
Executive Summary Attachment 1
Page 2 of 5
Under an agreement (dated 1999) with the City of San Luis Obispo, URS Greiner
Woodward Clyde conducted a study to update the previously performed engineering
feasibility of increasing the storage capacity of Salinas Reservoir. The engineering
studies addressed both the seismic and hydrologic consequences of raising the reservoir.
The criteria for this current evaluation are based upon meeting DSOD dam safety
requirements.
STABILITY OF THE DAM DURING EARTHQUAKE
Information Used in the Stability Evaluation of the Dam
A comprehensive evaluation of the stability of the dam during an earthquake was
performed using a computer model of the dam. This stability evaluation was performed
for the dam with the proposed higher water level, as well as for the dam with the existing
reservoir level. In order to evaluate the stability of the dam during an earthquake, several
key pieces of information were developed. This information includes the following.
• The location of the nearest active faults. An active fault is currently defined by the
Division of Safety of Dams to show evidence of earthquakes occurring on them in the
past 35,000 years. Faults with inconclusive evidence of activity, or that cannot be
shown to be inactive, are treated as being active for the purposes of the evaluation of
dam safety.
• The size(or magnitude) of the largest earthquake that could occur on these faults.
This largest earthquake is referred to as the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE),
and is the largest earthquake that is thought possible to occur on that fault. The MCE
is the"design earthquake."
• The amount of ground shaking at the dam from the design earthquake. The larger the
size or magnitude of the earthquake, and the closer the fault is to the dam,the greater
the ground shaking will be at the dam.
The results of the evaluation concluded that the closest and most significant active fault is
the Rinconada fault, located about one mile to the west, close to Pozo Road. The design
earthquake that could be generated on this fault is a magnitude 7-'/�,which is a large
earthquake. As an example, the Magnitude 6.8 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake caused
significant damage in San Francisco, and it occurred about 60 miles away from San
Francisco. The combination of such a large earthquake located so close to the dam
results in very strong ground shaking at the dam.
The performance of the dam under this strong shaking was analyzed for the current and
proposed raised reservoir levels using a computer model that estimates the stresses in the
dam caused by the earthquake. The stresses were then compared with the strength of the
concrete of the dam An assessment was made whether the dam will maintain sufficient
integrity to prevent the sudden release of the reservoir.
Stability of the Dam with the Raised Reservoir Level
The results of the computer analysis indicate that for the case of the raised reservoir level,
the stresses induced in the dam by the Maximum Credible Earthquake on the Rinconada
c\windows\desktop\exec summary-revised draft rpt version.doe 07/10/00 9:48 AM
Executive Summary Attachment 1
Page 3 of 5
fault would be much greater than the strength of the concrete in many portions of the
dam. As such,the analyses indicate that the dam is not strong enough to withstand strong
ground shaking with the increased load from a raised reservoir. The dam, under the
proposed reservoir raise, does not satisfy modem seismic performance evaluation criteria
such as those currently used by DSOD.
Stability of the Dam with the Current Reservoir Level
The computer analyses were also completed for the dam with the reservoir at its current
maximum level. The analysis indicated that stresses could exceed the strength of the
concrete at some locations of the dam, but with very short time durations. As such, the
overall stress levels and distribution were found to remain within an acceptable range
relative to the safety of the dam. The dam, under the existing maximum reservoir level,
satisfies modern seismic performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by
DSOD.
Comparison with 1990 Analyses
The results of previous analyses (completed in 1990) indicated that the dam, with the
maximum reservoir level raised by 19.3 feet, would be stable during the design
earthquake. The current analyses show that the dam would not be strong enough to
withstand the design earthquake. The reasons for this difference are largely due to the
differences in estimations of earthquake ground motions used in the analyses, details of
which are discussed below.
A previous seismic hazard analysis was performed by Woodward Clyde Consultants for
Salinas Dam in 1988 (submitted to the City in the 1989 Interim and 1990 Revised
Report). Iii this report, an MCE of magnitude (Ms) 7.4 resulting from an earthquake on
the Rinconada fault at a distance of about one mile was selected. This evaluation was
based solely on available data and no field investigations were performed. An earlier
study by the Corps of Engineers in 1977 concluded that the Rinconada fault was not
active based on two trenches excavated across the fault. Thus the judgment that the fault
was active in the 1988 study was conservative and was based principally on recording of
seismicity in the vicinity of the fault As stated in the 1990 report,very little seismologic
and geologic information is available on the Rinconada fault Considering the above,a
median (or 50%percentile)peak horizontal acceleration of 0.65g was selected. This
approach was judged to be consistent with DSOD procedures based on the information
known at that time.
In this current evaluation of Salinas Dam,an analysis of aerial photographs and a field
reconnaissance was performed along portions of the Rinconada fault The analysis found
evidence of active faulting. In addition, the fault consists of three segments, and previous
assessments of the fault included that up to 50% of the fault length could rupture during
an earthquake.' However,the Landers earthquake (Magnitude 7.3, 1992)showed that
fault rupture could jump to several segments. Therefore,the likelihood of an earthquake
occurring close to the dam was increased from the 1990 study. Considering this finding,
a more conservative ground motion (mean + 1, or 84rh percentile)of 1.l Og (which is 70%
c:lwindows\desktoplexec summary-revised draft rpt version.doc 07/10/00 9:48 AM
Executive Summary Attachment 1
Page 4 of 5
h
greater than the 1990 value of 0.65g) was selected for use in the analysis. Based on the
updated information, it was judged that DSOD requires use of these higher seismic
values.
STABILITY OF THE DAM DURING FLOODING
Standardized procedures are used to estimate the maximum amount of flooding which
could occur at a dam. The most recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) guidelines(referred to as HMR No. 58,published in 1998) were used to
estimate probable maximum amount of rainfall that could occur over the Santa Margarita
Lake watershed. The amount of rainfall was then used to calculate the design flood,
referred to as the Probable Maximum Flood, or PMF.
The computer model was used to check the stability of the dam with higher reservoir
loads during the design flood. It was found that the dam could safely withstand the
design flood under the raised reservoir scenario.
For both-the existing maximum reservoir and the proposed raised reservoir level,the
PMF would overtop the dam. With the raised reservoir, overtopping flow would be
greater and occur over a longer duration compared to the current maximum reservoir
level. The overtopping would not damage the dam itself,however, the rock at the base of
the dam could be eroded. This erosion could lead to undermining of the dam foundation,
which could lead to damage to the dam. Methods to prevent erosion damage from
occurring are relatively simple, and include placing reinforced concrete at the areas
where erosion could occur.
RIGHT ABUTMENT STABILITY
During the construction of the dam, measures were incorporated in the design to
strengthen the rock mass on the right abutment, which was thought to be prone to
movement during an earthquake. The DSOD has asked that the stability of the rock
foundation at the right side of the dam be evaluated. Based on our evaluation of the data,
our analysis results indicate that the rock mass is stable.
COORDINATION WITH THE DIVISION OF SAFETY OF DAMS AND THE
CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Very good coordination and understanding of the project has been developed with the
DSOD and the Corps of Engineers. Meetings have been held with the DSOD, Corps of
Engineers, City and County to discuss dam safety issues. As part of the study, an interim
report was prepared and submitted to DSOD in November 1999. The purpose of the
document was to present basic analysis parameters and evaluation criteria proposed for
use in the seismic analysis evaluation of Salinas Dam. In February 2000, DSOD sent a
letter to the City confirming that the earthquake ground motions proposed for use in the
analyses were satisfactory.
POTENTIAL DAM STRENGTHENING MEASURES TO ALLOW RAISE IN
MAXIMUM RESERVOIR LEVEL
Remedial construction has been performed on a number of concrete dams in the U.S. in
recent years to strengthen them to resist damage from strong earthquakes. On the basis of
our own experience in the design of strengthening measures for concrete arch dams in
c:\windows\desktop\exec summary-revised draft rpt version.doc 07/10/00 9:48 AM
Executive Summary Attachment 1
Page 5 of 5
California (such as the 190-foot high Gibraltar Dam near Santa Barbara), the most
straight-forward approach to strengthen the Salinas Dam would be to place a concrete
buttress against the downstream face of the dam. This would"stiffen" the dam, and
result in satisfactory stability of the dam. This approach could be combined with
construction of a concrete barrier in the spillway, which would eliminate the need for the
spillway gates and reduce overall construction costs.
Another approach, which would result in less ground disturbance, would be to thicken the
arch by placing additional concrete on the downstream face of the dam to stiffen the arch
shell and improve its overall stability. We are considering this approach for a 100-foot
high arch dam in California. An additional analysis was performed as part of our work to
evaluate this strengthening concept considering a modified dam with an overall average
concrete thickness which is approximately double that of the existing dam. The results of
this analysis indicate that this approach would be technically feasible providing that a
high quality bond can be achieved between the new and existing concrete. The actual
required thickness of additional concrete would depend on a number of factors including
constructibility-related considerations. However, although this approach may not be
appropriate for Salinas Dam because of the site-specific factors such as strong
groundshaking,it is recommended that its viability be reviewed in more detail at an
appropriate time.
In summary, there are a number of options that can be considered for strengthening the
dam. The overall cost,technical feasibility and environmental feasibility will govern the
feasibility of these options.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• The dam with a raised reservoir level does not satisfy modem seismic performance
evaluation criteria such as those currently used by DSOD.
• There are a number of options that can be considered for strengthening the dam. The
overall cost,technical feasibility and environmental feasibility will govern the
feasibility of these options.
• The dam with the existing maximum reservoir level satisfies modem seismic
performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by DSOD.
• The design flood will overtop the dam for the existing and raised reservoir cases,but
can be safely remediated by relatively easy methods.
• The dam can safely withstand the probable maximum flood(PMF) loading under the
raised reservoir scenario.
• Whether the reservoir is raised or not, it is recommended that the areas that could be
damaged by overtopping during the design flood leading to erosion be covered with a
suitably designed concrete blanket.
c:\windows\desktop\exec summary-revised draft rpt version.doc 07/10/00 9:48 AM
URS
July 5, 2000
Project No: 66-099SB037.02
Mr..Gary Henderson, Water Division Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Subject: Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project-Phase 1, Dam Engineering
Dam Strengthening Alternatives
Dear Mr. Henderson:
In accordance with your request, we are pleased to provide you with two conceptual
approaches, along with ballpark cost estimates, for seismically strengthening Salinas
Dam. These approaches are based on a 19-foot increase in the maximum reservoir level.
Remedial construction has been performed on a number of concrete dams in the U.S. in
recent years to strengthen them for critical seismic loading conditions. Our proposed
strengthening approaches were developed on the basis of our experience in the design of
strengthening measures for concrete arch dams in California under the California
Department.of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD)jurisdiction. As
such, the most straightforward and effective method of strengthening Salinas Dam would
be to construct a roller-compacted concrete(RCC) buttress against the downstream face
of the dam. This approach has been successfully implemented on several arch dams in
California_ The addition of a buttress would change the thin arch dam into a gravity
structure. A second approach would be to thicken the arch by placing additional
concrete on the downstream face of the dam. The dam thickening would "stiffen" the
arch shell and thereby increase its structural capacity during an earthquake. Very
preliminary analysis indicates that this approach would be technically feasible providing
that adequate shear transfer capacity can be achieved between the new RCC materials
and the existing concrete.
This letter report presents a description of these two strengthening approaches, referred to
herein as "RCC Buttress" and "Arch Thickening". The description includes precedent,
design features, and relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Ballpark
cost estimates are included for use in feasibility and planning studies.
Please note that:
• Both approaches are based on downstream additions so as to maintain the reservoir in
operation during the construction.
• Both approaches are based on methods accepted, or under favorable review, from
DSOD.
URS Corporation
500 12th Street.Suite 200
Oakland.CA 94607-4014
Tel:510.893.3600
Faz: 510.874.3268
URS
Mr.Cary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 2 of 8
RCC BUTTRESS
CONCEPT
The roller-compacted-concrete(RCC) alternative involves construction of an RCC
buttress against the downstream face of the existing dam. The objective of this design is
to change the dynamic response of the dam and thus reduce the dynamic stresses induced
in the dam under earthquake loading. The addition of the RCC buttress transforms the
current arch dam into a curved gravity structure.
PRECEDENT
RCC has been used for structural upgrades of several concrete arch and multiple arch
dams in California as well as in other States. In nearly all cases the need for upgrading
has involved strengthening to address seismic loadings substantially higher than
originally designed for. The use of an RCC buttress for arch dam rehabilitation and
strengthening has gained general acceptance from Federal and State regulatory agencies
in general and from DSOD in particular. Two arch dams strengthened using an RCC
buttress and which are most similar to Salinas Dam are Gibraltar Dam in California and
Santa Cruz Dam in New Mexico. Both of these dams are larger than Salinas Dam (195-
feet and 151-feet maximum height respectively) although both are single curvature thick
arch structures whereas Salinas Dam is a double curvature thin arch structure. The
significance of this difference is discussed below. Gibraltar Dam came under the
jurisdiction and both FERC and DSOD accepted the design. Construction of Gibraltar
Dam was completed in 1991 and at Santa Cruz Dam in 1990. Recent examples of
multiple arch dams in California strengthened using a downstream buttress include
Littlerock Dam in Palmdale, and Bear Valley Dam in San Bernardino County. In
addition, URS is currently finalizing the design of a partial height RCC.buttress at Weber
Dam, a 3-bay arch dam in the Sierra foothills east of Sacramento.
CONCEPT FEATURES
The layout of the buttress section would be accomplished using conventional design
methods for concrete dams such as those used by the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The layout was conservatively assumed, based upon stability and constructability
considerations, and no analyses were performed. For the purposes of estimating cost, the
buttress section is assumed to extend the full height of the overflow section of the arch.
During preliminary design the possible use of a partial height buttress could be
investigated, which if feasible would significantly reduce construction costs.
Conceptual designs of the various components of the design include the following:
1. A minimum crest width of 20 feet to facilitate construction. This provides the
minimum width for construction equipment to place, spread and compact the RCC at
the top of the buttress section.
07/03/00 X:VAwtonNstrcngtbcning.doc
URS
W Cary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 3 of 8
2. A downstream slope of 0.711: 1.OV based upon previous design experience and on the
use of a formed downstream face. An unfaced downstream face will be limited to the
angle of repose of the RCC materials which would result in an upstream slope closer
to 0.8H: 1.OV.
3. The downstream face will be designed as a stepped spillway. The surface of the steps
will be conventional concrete that would be placed concurrent with the RCC
placement. The steps act as roughness elements creating turbulence and entraining
air in the flood flows in order to dissipate energy and minimize flow accelerations and
terminal velocity. With reduced energy and lower flow velocity at the toe of the
buttress, the erosive power of the floodwater is substantially reduced and the need for
extensive erosion protection of the bedrock can be eliminated. Two-foot high steps
are proposed as a compromise between hydraulic efficiency and ease of construction.
4. A drainage gallery will be included within the buttress. Drain holes for relief of
foundation pore pressures will be installed from the gallery and used to reduce the
amount of uplift acting on the base of the buttress. The gallery would also serve as
access for post construction inspection and, if required, foundation grouting.
5. The buttress could extend across the spillway, thus eliminating the need for spillway
gates, and leading to some overall reductions in cost.
PROS AND CONS
PROS
1. Provides the most positive strengthening for-the dam. Curved gravity dams are
extremely resistant to structural failure and have performed well during seismic
shaking. This concept would remove any possible argument.that could be made as to
the seismic stability of the dam under the raised reservoir condition.
2. The RCC buttress-strengthening concept is accepted by DSOD.
3. There are several precedents to the use of an RCC buttress in California to seismically
strengthen arch or multiple-arch dams.
4. Can readily accommodate a future raise.
5. Eliminates the need for the erosion protection slab on the abutments and in the
channel beneath the arch crest. The use of a stepped downstream face as a secondary
or auxiliary spillway dissipates much of the energy in the overtopping flows.
6. Any potential problems associated with the adverse structural geology on the right
abutment are not a significant factor in the stability of a curved gravity structure.
7. Eliminates the need for spillway gates, which would remove the cost of gates from
the total construction cost estimate.
07/05/00 X:\Lawtonlstrengthating.doc
URS
Mr.Gary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 4 of 8
CONS
1. The appearance of the facility, while pleasing, will be significantly different.
2. The extent of the buttress needs to be reviewed considering project description and
other aspects of the EIR.
3. The overhanging or negatively sloping downstream face will restrict how close
construction equipment can come to the face of the arch resulting in use of more
conventional (i.e. expensive) "interface concrete" (ie, concrete placed between the
overhang of the existing dam, and the new RCC) than would otherwise be necessary.
This was not an issue at either Gibraltar dam or Santa Cruz Dams, which have
positively sloping downstream faces.
4. Aggregate for the RCC can not be produced on site and will need to be imported (the
Santa Margirita"Hansen" quarry is relatively close).
5. No spillway gate could restrict reservoir operational flexibility, although the intended
operational approach is to operate the reservoir with the gates always maintaining a
full reservoir.
COST ESTIMATE
A conceptual-level estimate of the cost of construction of the RCC alternative is
presented in Table 2. The estimated construction cost, in 2000 dollars, is $8.7 million.
Quantities and unit prices shown in Table 2 may change, and the number of work items
will increase, as design work progresses and the required work becomes better defined.
Consequently the conceptual level estimate should be considered to have a range of
minus 15 percent to plus 30 percent, which equates to a range of$7.4 million to $11.3
million. The estimates do not include design or construction management costs, nor do
they include the spillway related costs associated with raising the reservoir level.
Potentially the three biggest factors affecting the cost are:
1. Price and availability of imported aggregate rock. The unit price for producing RCC
shown in Table 2 is based on importing aggregate rather than producing it on site. A
moderate haul distance(10 miles) and an approximate cost for 1'h aggregate(from
Hansen Aggregates) were assumed in assessing a unit price. However, Hansen
Aggregate's quarry in Santa Margirita only produces a 1'/2 x% aggregate which is too
clean for RCC production. Their crushing plant and screens would need to be
modified to produce aggregate with a substantially higher fines content. A
conservative mix design comprising 200 pounds of cement and 100 pounds of
pozzolan per cubic yard of RCC was assumed. -
2. Site Logistics. Having sufficient area available close to the dam in which to set up a
batch plant and for aggregate storage. The cost of in-place RCC will increase
substantially if off site production of RCC is necessary. The estimated cost is based
07/05/00 X.UAWtonstrrngthening.doe
URS
Mr.Gary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 5 of 8
on being able to set up a batch plant immediately downstream of the dam: Space
would have to be created immediately adjacent to the outlet control building, along
with use of space at the intersection of the access roads to the toe of the dam and the
top of the right abutment. A more detailed analysis is needed to properly evaluate
construction logistics.
3. Access to the dam. Transporting the RCC from the batch plant to the buttress can be
accomplished by a variety of methods including using trucks, a conveyor belt or
lifting with cranes. Access for construction equipment and RCC on to the buttress is
restricted on the right abutment by the spillway and on the left abutment by the step
topography. The spillway must remain serviceable during construction, effectively
limiting vehicular access from the right abutment. The environmental impacts (and
economics) associated with cutting haul roads at various elevations on the steep
topography of the left abutment may effectively rule out the use'of haul trucks to
transport the RCC. Such access restrictions may lead to the use of commonly used
conveyor systems. If use of neither conveyors nor trucks proves feasible, the RCC
could be placed by crane(tower crane or cable) although the setup cost and slow
production rate would increase placement cost. The estimated cost is based on being
able to use either a conveyor belt system or haul trucks.
Allowances were made for water management downstream of the worksite during
construction and for relatively minor modifications to the existing outlet system to
incorporate it into the buttress. However, the extent of these items is not defined at a
conceptual level and these may substantially impact the final cost.
An allowance for unlisted and unidentified items, equal to 25% of the subtotal, was
made.
For review purposes, we compared the total unit cost(estimated total cost divided by the
volume of RCC) for a Salinas Dam buttress with costs for some recent RCC projects, in
order to assess the reasonableness of our conceptual estimate. The comparison summary
is presented in Table 3. The comparison projects include both new construction and
rehabilitation of embankment and concrete gravity dams.
• The costs(except for Weber which is still in design) are an average of the bids
received (ignoring extreme numbers) including the engineers estimate.
• None of the projects(except again for Weber Dam, which includes extensive outlet
works modification) have any unusual features that would distort the unit costs.
• The unit cost for Salinas is approximately$190 per cubic yard, which places it at the
low end of the$260 to $300 plus range for the four rehabilitation projects. These
four projects are however much smaller than Salinas and the lower unit cost for
Salinas reflects economies of scale.
07/05/00 XAL&vAonlstrmgthening.doe
URS
Mr.Gary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 6 of 8
• Furthermore, the cost of the RCC and facingrnterface concrete in the Salinas estimate
is approximately 50% of the total projected cost, which is in line with the proportions
reported by Hansen and Reinhardt (Roller Compacted Concrete Dams,199 1)
ARCH THICKENING
CONCEPT
This.alternative consists of thickening the dam on the downstream side. The thickened
dam would have moderately increased stiffness and rigidity(relative to a buttressed
dam), which would reduce the fundamental period of the dam, thereby increasing the
dynamic response. However, the stresses generated within the dam would be reduced
from their current levels since a larger structural section is resisting the dynamic forces.
Preliminary analyses using the finite element model of the dam indicate that thickening is
technically effective at reducing stresses to levels that satisfy modem seismic
performance evaluation criteria.
PRECEDENT
The concept is currently in the final design phase for the seismic upgrading of San
Clemente Dam, a gravity arch dam located in Monterey County. San Clemente is under,
the jurisdiction ofDSOD, and the State has worked closely with URS in implementing its
design.
There are examples of concrete-gravity and masonry-gravity dams being raised by
placing mass concrete against the downstream face. However, in the majority of
instances the dams were designed to accommodate such a modification by incorporating
a stepped face in the original design to facilitate shear transfer with the overlay concrete.
DESIGN FEATURES
The approach involves placing conventional concrete against the downstream face of the
dam to increase the structural capacity of the arch. The thickness of the new concrete
would be approximately the same as the original thickness at each elevation and location
along the dam profile (ie, the thickness of the dam would double). With the reservoir
elevation raised by the proposed 19 feet, our preliminary analyses indicate that to avoid
excessive overstressing of the during the MCE (on the Rinconada fault based on 8e
percentile motions), the thickness of the arch portion of the dam would need to be
approximately doubled.
For dynamic stresses to be reduced to acceptable levels, sufficient shear transfer must be
achieved between the new and existing concrete in order to produce a monolithic section. -
07105YOO x:V awtonlstreogthating.doc
\\
URS
Mr.Gary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 7 of S
PROS AND CONS
PROS
1. The appearance of the dam would not be substantially altered.
2. The footprint of the strengthened dam would remain within the area of disturbance
identified in the EIR
CONS
1. The option is not feasible if the reliable shear strength provided by concrete-to-
concrete bond is insufficient to resist shear stresses generated along the interface.
Unless the generated shear stresses are low, as may be the case with a thin overlay,
providing adequate shear strength is generally not possible using the concrete-to-
concrete bond strength. Extracting the interface shear stresses from the computer
model of the thickened dam is not straightforward and was not done as part of this
work. Typically, a stepped pattern on the interface is necessary to act as shear keys in
order to achieve a reliable shear transfer mechanism. However, a stepped face is only
achievable if the dam is constructed that way to, for instance, allow thickening to
occur as part of a future dam raise.
2. If concrete bond (i.e. adhesion) is found to provide adequate shear strength,the
surface of the existing concrete must be very carefully prepared. Adequate surface
preparation is very sensitive to quality control exercised during construction. The
bond strength achieved is markedly degraded if specified procedures are not precisely
followed.
3. The preliminary analyses did not address the impact that doubling the mass of the
arch may have on the effectiveness and stability of the thrust blocks, particularly on
the right abutment.
4. The anchored concrete slab over the bedrock surface downstream of arch will still be
necessary to prevent the dam from being undercut by flood flows overtopping the
dam crest.
5. There is minimal precedent for this type of strengthening.
COST ESTIMATE
The cost estimate for the arch thickening is very conceptual, and is.based on the
assumption that the required bond strength can be developed and that the quantity of
additional concrete (or the thickness of the additional concrete) is approximately equal to
the quantity of the existing concrete.
07/05100 X;%1A Aon\streagth=ing.doo
URS
Mr.Cary Henderson
City of San Luis Obispo
June 30,2000
Page 8 of 8
Assuming the technical and design issues can be satisfactorily resolved, a ball-park
estimate of the cost of construction of the arch thickening alternative is $6.5 million. The
estimate should be considered to have a range of minus 15 percent to plus 30 percent,
which equates to a range of$5.6 million to $8.5 million. The estimate do not include
design or construction management costs, nor does it include the spillway related costs
associated with raising the reservoir level.
SUNEVIARY
Although the cost estimate for the arch thickening approach is lower compared to the
buttress approach, the buttress approach is recommended for the following reasons:
❑ It is well accepted by the DSOD based on our recent design practice;
❑ The arch thickening concept, while appropriate for dams with relatively small seismic
loading, my not be appropriate for the Salinas Dam project because of the relatively
high seismic loading.
We would be glad to discuss these concepts with you in further detail at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE
Gd M. Lawton
U
Project Manager
Attachments (3)
07105i0o X:\Lawtan\strcngLheningdoc
0
ai
0
C)
0
N
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V1 O O O
O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O
-� O
O C C C C 0 C 1n C C 0 U �D �-1 0 0 0
^ N O N 1n C kD N 0 0 LO N O M 0 0 0
Cm 'i N r-1 14 V). ID c C• N N M In 0 lD 0
D �- v} yr or as CO. CO. ur ar . . .
X N un r1 kD %0 Ln m
(f). (r, 'Cry V).
ea vn
0 0 0 o v o 0 0 0 0 1n o
O O O O O O In v 0 O. r-1 M
U 0 0 0 0 N M O O I
-'I
T
a, un o 0 1n o n
N m
U)
a)
O m m
a
>, o 0 0 0
4J 0 0 0 0
-a o M Ln 0
41 ft ft I I
C I I I I 1n r o I I
M
O
w a
H
a
N
EO O O
[] F M E
E- •J
y m 4
O J
V C
C
a m
> a
a c v
O C
a m -H m
rt ++ +i
E m $4 E
1L E m a)
U lmi N H
o aEi � w b
. V F-I-I N M
0 a C w
z m c m -14
H .I o >w
W im.1 O y L L (L)
�G al •.a m a1 U •O
hU•1 N 1J m m U •c ^
S CD C > M C m 7 a
N m 10 N O -4 16 <
E dwU m X m 3 O E-
r-
¢ m O+ W v 4-+ O w E
❑ m (D 0 a) IM L m
la a c C U --I w 10 >,0
O 0 m O m w U W r-I C 0]
E ti x -H w -.1 C U m m
~ ❑ H 0 7 m U W yJ 4J C O p
y \ a) a) •O to to w U N •-4 >
'i .0 L 4J c m 0 m .-1 4J mo. 07
d O -.-1 m 7 6 U m +•1 G. aJ C LO y
m £ N 3 0 m c m c E n O N y
E+ W O E r-1 r O U w
C
.-+ N M c Ln %D I- m M O .•-1 cc
I y
X
T
LO
0
N
r
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O in Ln O O O
C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O O
O O O O O N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in rf l0 O O O
O O O O r O N 0 1n 1n 0 0 Lr) O c tO O O O O
Vl Ln N an N m O r to N r ul O N O m c M O O O
m .--I N .••I N N C) m Ln .-4 f`1 u7 N m O) r r r V' m
V} Or (fi. V). V} VT : (r V)- - V} Vr Vr
x E .-1 %D m r
W ur ur (r, M. Vr V). (A r.
Vr
dw da
O O O O Cl) O N O Ln O Un 0 0 0 in 0
a) 0 0 0 0 O .--1 (n O r N 0 1!1 O r1 m
U 0 0 0 0 N r1 N O O I
-./
w 0 C 0 C O O
a+ V) Ln V) O O O
m rr N r1 I!) M m .
m
a)
-H m m m m Cu >+ }� Q �. m EM
C
m U E U E E U r7 [++ �7 m
� a
>, 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O
•,.1 O Ln O O O Ln 0 LO
C 1 I 1 I in 4 if) Ln N I I
Cl) m c
7
a
E-
QE
£ H E
VEi E-1 N H
Cil •�
W .4
E "4
m +'
O C
U
to
7
• a a
G] O U G
-a m m
L L W
CD E m 41 d
E a) CL 41 C iJ
a wCD d U ri H
Z PC
4J b' a E >+ U G a)
U f-1 a C U U m wl
to C N A O+ •i
m rl O b L .i c aP
m m C •rl m m C rl „i C
Cd w O 4.1 am) 41 m 0 0 0 m
a m -i (a a) m O O (a b
E c L w N b+ a) N '-1 Cv
E m L m m U a) U C -�
O u C > CL C w m u u
m a) m a) O CP ri
"6 E U w U O+ a E a) w E
U c N x a Q >\ >, w rt O O Cl)
U c0 C Cil 'O ra '-1 O rl w E
II'
to m d N N
a c c U ,,I w 1n a s m >+o m
O N m O m 41 O m n 7 .i C m _ L
E w £ -+ W —1 CL U m m a) m O m ca
N a) a Y w N E O L 0) 2 M 4.1
in w m 7 O) N w L t m m 41 C O p
m m m b m m a C N w C C m H >
ri .0 s+ a.+ C —1 a) m U •.1 •.1 ri 4-1 d/
o -+ m O E U u U E T a m m a, c Ln y
F £ N 3 o a a cam., v o c o U N
c
.-i N rv) c V) tO r m m 0 .•q 04 M c to f0
TABLE 3. UNIT COST COMARISION.
ACC 6 Concrete
Dam State Type Volume TOTAL Unit Cost
Peterson Dam Colorado New 10, 000 $180
Tiehack Dam Wyoming New 115, 000 $115
Bullard Dam* Orgeon New 10, 000 $230
Dupage Reservoir* Illinois Embankment 12, 000 $283
Mona Reservoir Utah Embankment 3, 000 $266
Weber Dam California Arch 10,000 $350
Rush Dam Kansas Arch 5,000 $288
Salinas Dam Estimate Arch 50,000 $194
* Flood control dam
MCDONouGH HOLLAND & ALmMEETING AGEN
+ DA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DATE II —09-Ov ITEM ���
JOSEPH E.COOMES.JR. EDWAROJ.QUINN.JR. ATTORNEYS KENT W.SILVESTER THOMAS J.NOGUEPOLA
OAV' TOTTISWOOO MARK GORTON DANIEL V.MARTINEZ STEPHEN M.LERNER
OO ^DOLE ROBERT R.RUSIN666 CAPITOL MALL, 9TH FLOOR STEVEN A.LAMON JEREMY S.KASHIAN
RIC .OSEN MORGAN T.JONES JAN PATRICK SHERRY KEVIN D.SIEGEL
RICH....-E.BRANDT PATRICIA D.ELLIOTT PAUL C.ANDERSON
G.RICHARD BROWN WILLIAM C.HIL ON.JR. SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814-4692 L.STUART LIST
DAVID W.POST IRIS P YANG JEREMY S.MILLSTONE OF COUNSEL
SUSAN K.COLING CATHY OEUBEL SALENKO TELEPHONE: (916) 444-3900 STACEY N.SHESTON V.BARLOW GOFF
DAVID F.BEATTY JACK D.BROWN ANDRE K.CAMPBELL RICHARD W.NICHOLS
MICHAEL T.FOGARTY THOMAS L.HILL FACSIMILE: (916) 444-8334 TYSON M.SHOWER ANN TAYLOR SCHWING
NATALIE E.WEST NANCY P.LEE ERIC N.ROBINSON ZACHARY SMITH
ANN O'CONNELL MARY E.OLDEN INTERNET:www.mhalaw.com SETH MEREWITZ CLEMENT J.DOUGHERTY.JR.
ROBERT W.0 CONNOR EDWARD J.WRIGHT.JR. JAMESCLARKE LINDA R.BECK
JEFFRY R.JONES MICHELLE MARCHETTA KENYON LAURA J.FOWLER RICHARD G.RYPINSKI
T.BRENT HAWKINS STEPHEN L.GOFF GERALD J.RAYIZA JOHN R.BRIGGS
JAMES M.RUDDICK MICHAEL K.IWAHIRO October 20 2000 CAROL A. R.TOBINSON CHRISTINE R.HALL
DAWN H.COLE GLENN W.PETERSON M=0
CAROL R.VICTOR
KAREN WHITE MURPHY RETIRED
SHARON DAY ROBEME DAVIT L.KROTINE IS ALFRED E.HOLLAND
SUSAN L.9CHOENIG TODD M. P.MATES Z[A-j-J DANIEL V.Y.BIEOLER
JAMES L LEFT T000 Y.BAILEYCAITLIN E.ROSS BRUCE F.ALLEN
VIRGINIA A.CAHILL MARCIA L.AUGSBURGERJANA DU 8015 MARTIN MCDONOUGH
HARRIET A.STEINER NANCY T.TEYPIETONETHAN WALSH 11915 19871
WILLIAM A.LICHTIG DAVID E.MACCHIAVELLIRODNEY R.MOY RECEIVED
Via Federal ExpressOCT 2 3 2000
Ci Council SPOSLO CITY CLERK
ty
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Request by the City of El Paso de Robles that the City of San Luis
Obispo prepare a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report befor
approving the Salinas Dam Expansion Project s¢_ W s
C—C3 — C)�C
pZ63owG
Dear Council Members: ""LL
o❑❑❑❑❑�
The City of El Paso de Robles requests that the City of San Luis Obispo
prepare a subsequent Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") on its proposed
Salinas Dam Expansion Project before taking any action to approve the project. r s�?
This request is based on new information showing that the seismic and dam Z c o¢�i
safety impacts of the reservoir expansion will be significantly more severe than o<0 1=�s�
shown in the original EIR for the project. This new dam safety information was p7 Lid 01
prepared by San Luis Obispo's engineering consultant,URS Greiner Woodward
Clyde, after the original EIR was certified in 1998. The new dam safety analysis
concludes that if the storage capacity of Salinas Reservoir were increased, the
existing Salinas Dam would not be strong enough to withstand the design
earthquake on the Rinconada fault. In other words, the new studies conclude
that the project, as originally designed and proposed,cannot be built without
risking catastrophic dam failure.
A copy of Volumes I and II of the Salinas Reservoir Expansion Project
Dam Safety Evaluation Final Report prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo by
URS Greiner Woodward Clyde is enclosed with this letter. Documents
summarizing this new dam failure analysis and describing project redesign
options were presented to the City Council in the July 18,2000,City of San Luis
Obispo Council Agenda Report ("Council Agenda Report"). The agenda packet
contained two attachments: (1) Executive Summary of"Salinas Reservoir
Expansion Project Dam Safety Evaluation" ("Executive Summary") and (2)July 5,
2000, letter from San Luis Obispo's dam expansion consultant,URS Greiner
Woodward Clyde, to San Luis Obispo's water division manager, Gary
VUBA CITY OFFICE
422 CENTURY PARK DRIVE.SUITE A BAY AREA OFFICE
PO.BOK Y76 1999 HARRISON STREET,SUITE 1300
YUBA CITY. LIFORNIA 98992-0776 OAKLAND.CALIFORNIA 94612
TELEPHONE:(830)674-9761 TELEPHONE:(510)E73-0760
FACSIMILE:(530)671-0990 FACSIMILE:(BIO)039-9104
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20, 2000
Page 2
Henderson ("URS Letter"). Copies of these documents are enclosed with this
letter.
The Executive Summary of the Dam Safety Evaluation states that the
results of the computer analysis indicate that for the case of the raised reservoir
level, "the stresses induced in the dam by the Maximum Credible Earthquake on
the Rinconada fault would be much greater than the strength of the concrete in
many portions of the dam. As such, the analyses indicate that the dam is not
strong enough to withstand strong ground shaking with the increased load from
a raised reservoir. The dam, under the proposed reservoir raise,does not satisfy
modern seismic performance evaluation criteria such as those currently used by
DSOD [Division of Safety of Dams]." (Executive Summary, pp. 2-3 (emphasis
added).)
The URS letter suggests two conceptual approaches for seismically
strengthening Salinas Dam, each of which involves a major redesign of the
proposed project and neither of which was discussed in the Salinas Reservoir
Enlargement Project EIR.
This new information requires preparation of a subsequent EIR under the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). Public Resources Code section
21166 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 provide that a subsequent EIR
must be prepared when any of the following three events occurs:
(1) new information,which was not known and could not have been
known at the time the environmental impact report was certified as
complete becomes available.
(2) substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under
which the project is being undertaken which will require major
revisions in the environmental impact report; or
(3) substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require
major revisions of the EIR;
Pub. Res. Code § 21166. Although only one of these three events need occur to
require preparation of a subsequent EIR, the new seismic and dam safety
analysis produced by San Luis's engineering consultant requires preparation of a
subsequent EIR under all three tests.
First, the seismic and dam safety analysis produced in June and July 2000
constitutes new information that was not known,and could not have been
known, when San Luis certified its EIR in 1998, and thus triggers Public
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 3
Resources Code section 21166(c). The Agenda Report even calls the new seismic
data "new information." (See Council Agenda Report at 4.)
CEQA Guideline section 15162 clarifies that the type of new information
that triggers the requirement to prepare a subsequent EIR includes information
showing that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or showing that significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR. The new information
shows that if the dam is expanded as San Luis proposes, it "would not be strong
enough to withstand the design earthquake on the Rinconada fault." (Council
Agenda Report at 4). Although previous seismic studies indicated that an
expanded dam would be stable during the design earthquake, "current analyses
show that the dam would not be strong enough to withstand the design
earthquake." (Executive Summary at 3.) Accordingly, "[t]he dam with a raised
reservoir level does not satisfy modern seismic performance evaluation criteria
such as those currently used by DSOD." (Executive Summary at 5.) This
information establishes that the project as described in the FEIR will have
significant seismic impacts not discussed in the FEIR and substantially more
severe than acknowledged in the section of the FEIR dealing with seismicity and
faulting.
Second, the new data shows that earthquake forces acting on the dam are
likely to be 70 percent greater than the forces previously assumed. (See Council
Agenda Report at 3; Executive Summary at 4-5.) The increase in the severity of
the expected earthquake forces constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
under which the project is being undertaken, triggering Public Resources Code
section 21166(b).
Third, the major new construction proposed to address the greater
earthquake forces would transform the dam expansion project into something
substantially different from the project proposed by San Luis and analyzed in its
EIR. The EIR analyzed installation of drum gates at the dam's existing spillway,
without any strengthening of the concrete arch dam structure. The new
information shows that either the dam thickness must be substantially
increased—an approach that might not be technically feasible—or a massive
concrete buttress must be constructed to support the downstream side of the
dam. (See Council Agenda Report at 3;June 30, 2000, URS letter.) Either
approach constitutes a substantial change to San Luis' proposed project that
would cause potentially significant adverse environmental impacts that require
major revisions to the existing EIR, triggering Public Resources Code section
21166(a).)
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20, 2000
Page 4
The URS-Letter identifies a list of"CONS" for each approach to addressing
the project's seismic safety problems. Building a massive concrete buttress
would give the dam a "significantly different" appearance, (URS Letter at 4),
which raises new aesthetic impact issues. Aggregate required to make the
buttress concrete"can not be produced on site and will need to be imported",
(id.), which raises new traffic and air quality issues. Building a buttress would
prevent installation of the proposed spillway drum gates, which "could restrict
reservoir operation flexibility." (Id.) This raises questions about all resource
impacts affected by the dam's proposed operational regime, including harm to
downstream water users, like Paso Robles. None of these potential adverse
environmental impacts have been analyzed and subjected to public review and
comment, as required by CEQA.
A subsequent EIR is necessary under CEQA to present the new dam
failure analysis, to describe the recommended alternatives for redesigning the
dam expansion project to address the threat of catastrophic failure, to analyze the
potential environmental impacts of the alternative project designs and to
prescribe mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts. Only if the City of San
Luis Obispo prepares a subsequent EIR containing this information will the
public, other government agencies with authority to approve the project and the
City Council, itself,have the information needed to understand the public safety
and environmental consequences of approving a dam expansion project.
Just last month, in a case involving the State Water Project,Planning and
Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources, 83 Cal. App. 4th 892 (2000),
the court of appeal stated: "The ultimate decision of whether to approve a.
project,be that decision right or wrong, is a nullity if based upon an EIR that
does not provide the decision-makers, and the public, with the information about
the project that is required by CEQA." Id. at 916. The error is prejudicial "if the
failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and
informed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR
process." Id. The court referred to the "essential mission of CEQA to present a
full disclosure of the potential environmental impacts of the proposal." Id. Any
decision by the City Council to approve the proposed dam expansion project
without first disclosing important information regarding seismic impacts and
dam safety in a subsequent EIR would jeopardize public safety and violate
CEQA.
San Luis Obispo may not lawfully approve the proposed Salinas Dam
Expansion Project unless and until the City prepares a subsequent EIR. But even
more important—the City of El Paso de Robles and other communities lie
downstream of Salinas Dam. And there is no possible justification for the elected
public servants on San Luis Obispo's City Council to approve a water supply
City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
October 20,2000
Page 5
expansion project based on a design that threatens downstream communities
with catastrophic loss of life and property damage from dam failure. The duty to
avoid catastrophic dam failure must overcome the desire to support new growth
and development by expanding the water supply from Salinas Reservoir.
Conclusion
The new seismic analysis shows that the Salinas Reservoir Enlargement
Project, as described and analyzed in the original FEIR,has dam safety problems
and would risk dam failure in the event of a maximum credible earthquake. The
Salinas Reservoir expansion, as proposed, will not meet the standards of the
Division of Safety of Dams. This is an important impact—it involves the
potential for catastrophic downstream flooding. In light of these public safety
problems, the City Council must not approve construction of the reservoir
enlargement project as proposed. Nor can the City of San Luis Obispo approve
an alternate design, until it prepares a subsequent EIR disclosing the true
impacts of the project related to seismicity and faulting and addressing all
impacts of any alternative design intended to address the seismic impacts.
Finally, the City of El Paso de Robles requests that San Luis Obispo notify
Paso Robles of any upcoming City Council meeting at which the Salinas
Reservoir Expansion Project will be considered as an action item. Please send
notice separately to Virginia A. Cahill and Iris P. Yang both of McDonough,
Holland & Allen, 555 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, California, 95814, and also to Joe
Deakin,Director of Public Works,City Of El Paso De Robles, 1000 Spring Street,
Paso Robles, California,93446
Very truly yours,
_ at 7
01�
Virgim A. Cahill
Attorney for City of El Paso de Robles
VAC/ENR/jad
Enclosures
cc: Jim APP
Iris Yang
Joe Deakin
Gary Henderson
Scott S. Slater