Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/2003, C8 - CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COON CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT council j acEnaa nEpont CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE COON CREEK FISH PASSAGE PROJECT CAO RECOMMENDATION Certify the mitigated negative declaration for the Coon Creek Fish Passage project. DISCUSSION Coon Creek is a relatively pristine coastal stream which originates in the Irish Hills or San Luis Range, and flows in a generally westerly direction for about eight miles, emptying into the Pacific Ocean just south of Montana de Oro State Park on property owned by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company. The creek is crossed by a road on fill about one-half mile above its mouth.. In 1995 heavy flooding caused the culvert under the road to become blocked, and the overflow culverts on the road fill became the "normal'flow for the creek after this flood event. The creek bed was raised about six feet by the event and a six foot waterfall at the downstream end of the overflow culvert was the ultimate result. Continued erosion at the waterfall has increased its height to about eight feet today. This waterfall is a complete barrier to fish movements and has effectively cut off the upper portion of the creek (over six miles of high quality habitat) from the local anadromous fish species, southern steelhead. As part of the permit process for the City of San Luis Obispo's Water Reuse Project, various mitigations for losses occasioned by that project were required. A fish passage restoration project on Coon Creek was agreed upon by the City and various regulatory agencies as mitigation that would fulfill in part those mitigation requirements. Accordingly City staff have obtained an agreement with the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to permit the construction of the fish passage, which includes replacement of the fill structure with a bridge and installation of a number of"step pools"to allow fish passage across the area. This would be similar to the type of construction at the upper San Luis Obispo Creek dam,and is expected to permanently correct the problem. The City has contracted with the engineering firm of TRC Engineers, of Irvine, CA., to design the facility. City Natural Resources staff are undertaking the environmental and permitting portions of the project Preliminary design was completed in April 2003 and permit applications have been submitted to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the County of San Luis Obispo, which acts as the local arm of the State Coastal Commission. At the same time an initial study and mitigated negative declaration (MND) of environmental impact were circulated. Comments were received from the County,requesting that additional biological study be undertaken of the site, specifically in.reference to possible presence of the Morro shoulderband snail cr., �t Council Agenda Report—Certification of Mitigated Negative Declaration for Coon Creek Fish Passage Project Page 2 and possible use of the beach at the mouth of Coon Creek by nesting snowy plovers. Also the County requested additional archeological study of the project site. These studies were done and the site was found not to contain Morro shoulderband snails, snowy plovers,or archeological remains. No other comments or requests were received regarding the initial study or proposed MND. The City has been requested by the County to certify the mitigated negative declaration prior to the County's consideration of the Coastal permit application, currently scheduled for consideration on July 3, 2003. For that reason,the Council is being asked to make the certification at this time. The project is essentially self-mitigating. Voluntary restrictions on timing of the project,locations of staging, fueling, and equipment servicing areas, and erosion, vegetation, and water quality protections included in the project are deemed sufficient to mitigate the environmental impacts of the project to a level of less than significant. FISCAL BIPACT None at this time. Staff is still awaiting final design for the bridge structure and the step pools, which will give a more accurate cost estimate. The earliest reasonable start date in 2003 was about September 1, and this was considered dangerously late in the season to begin such a complicated project. Therefore, staff abandoned this idea and currently anticipates undertaking the project beginning in May 2004. This will give us the full "window" of time available to work in the creek environment,about six months. It takes pressure off of reviewing agencies,Pacific Gas and Electric Company,and the City, and we believe will result in a better project. CONCURRENCES The Utilities Department, which is funding the project, supports this effort as removal of the road as a barrier to fish migration is a major mitigation for a City-sponsored project. ALTERNATIVES None are recommended. Attachments 1. Initial Study(including location map) g&avhk/cou ilagenda/Coon Creek MND J , ATTACHMENT I 04f PUN* S 1: 0 F CA 1. 11: 0 R N I A GOVERNOR'S OFFICE of PLANNING AND RESEARCH '` op Grav Davis Tal Finney (;O\-TRNOR IN I FRIM DIKEC I OR May 14,2003 Michael Clarke City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Subject: Coon Creek Fish Passage Enhancement SCH#: 2003041088 Dear Michael Clarke: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Declaration to selected state agencies for review. The review period closed on May 13,2003,and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents,pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call the State Clearinghouse at(916)445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project,please refer to the ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office. Sincerely, Terry oberts Director,State Clearinghouse 1400 TENTH S FREE I- P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMEN-1 0,CAI.IFORNI.k 95812-3044 916-322-231S FAX 916-324-9936 x%'x\-w.opr.ca.gov Document Details Report State Clearinghouse Data Bast ATTACHMENT 1 SCH# 2003041088 Project Title Coon Creek Fish Passage Enhancement Lead Agency San Luis Obispo,City of Type Neg Negative Declaration Description Coon Creek represents pristine spawning and rearing habitat for Southern steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Access to the creek by returning adult steelhead has been prevented since heavy storms in 1995 blocked several undersized culverts beneath the extension to Pechos Valley Road,which passes over the creek approximately 0.25 miles from the confluence with the Pacific Ocean.The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the blocked culverts to restore unimpeded passage to anadromous fist into Coon Creek,allowing use of approximately six miles of pristine spawning and rearing habitat located upstream of the blockage.The project proposes the removal of the blocked culverts and the re-grading of the creek bed to address the disparity in grade existing between channel upstream and downstream of the culverts. The culverts will be replaced with a clear-span bridge, which will not trap debris and will not be prone to clogging during storm events. In addition,the channel will be stabilized and a grade restored which is'suitable for fish passage. Gradient control in the modified channel will entail the installation of low rock weir drop structures conforming to specifications described in the California Department of Fish and Game publication °Califomia Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual." Lead Agency Contact Name Michael Clarke Agency City of San Luis Obispo Phone 805-781-7511 Fax email Address 990 Palm Street City San Luis Obispo State CA Zip 93401 Project Location County San Luis Obispo City Region Cross Streets Coon Creek Valley Road, Montana de Oro/Diablo Canyon Parcel No. 076-011-006 Township 315 Range 10E Section Base Proximity to: Highways Airports Railways Waterways Coon Creek Schools Land Use Project Issues Air Quality;Coastal Zone; Noise; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;Vegetation;Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian;Wildlife Reviewing Resources Agency;Department of Conservation; Department of Fish and Game, Region 3; Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; Reclamation Board;Caltrans, District 5;State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality;Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 3; Native American Heritage Commission Date Received 04/14/2003 Start of Review 04/14/2003 End of Review 05/13/2003 cg �� Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency. ATTACHMENT 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER #42-03 1. Project Title: Coon Creek Fish Passage Enhancement.Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, SLO, CA, 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Michael Clarke (805) 781 7511 4. Project Location: Approximately four miles south of the City of Morro bay; on the extension of Pechos Valley Road where it passes over Coon Creek (vicinity map attached). 5. Project Sponsor's Name & Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, SLO, CA, 93401 6. General Plan Designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of the Project: Coon Creek represents pristine spawning and rearing habitat for Southern steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Access to the creek by returning adult steelhead has been prevented since heavy storms in 1995 blocked several undersized culverts beneath the extension to Pechos Valley Road, which passes over the creek approximately 0.25 miles from the confluence with the Pacific Ocean. The purpose of the proposed project is to replace the blocked culverts to restore unimpeded passage to anadromous fish into Coon Creek, allowing use of approximately six miles of pristine spawning and rearing habitat located upstream of the blockage. The project proposes the removal of the blocked culverts and the re-grading of the creek bed to address the disparity in grade existing between channel upstream and downstream of the culverts. The culverts will be replaced with a clear-span bridge, which will not trap debris and will not be prone to clogging during storm events. In addition, the channel will be stabilized and a grade restored which is suitable for fish passage. Gradient control in the modified channel will entail the installation of low rock weir drop structures conforming to specifications described in the California Department of Fish and Game publication "California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual" e� r� ATTACHMENT 1 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The site of the proposed project is located on land owned by Pacific Gas and Electric, as part of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant facility. Immediately north of the project site is the Montana de Oro State Park. 10. Project Entitlements Requested: None 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The proposed project will require a California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601), a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 401 permit, a Water Quality Certification from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, a San Luis Obispo County Land Use Permit, and possibly a County grading permit. Input from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service has been sought in the design of the culvert replacement and instream structures. Agencies also provided advice on how to minimize the impacts of the proposed project to special status species. CITY OF SAN LUIS OeISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 c9--� ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality =X- Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation &Traffic -X- Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment --_X_-- of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or -X-- more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). CITY OF SAN LUIS OBIsPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 ^ DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached f--X- sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant' impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. June 18,2003 Signature Date For: John Mandeville, Printed Name Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact' answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 (lam ATTACHMENT 7 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? =-X- b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and -X--' historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X-- d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect day or nighttime views in-the area? Conclusion The proposed project would result in the replacement of a blocked culvert with a free-span bridge and the construction of instream step pools to facilitate fish passage. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources along a scenic highway. Implementation of the project would result in an overall long-term beneficial effect on the habitat quality of the creek corridor. Implementation of the project would not result in a new source of substantial light or glare. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring -X-- Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? --- c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of ::X--- Farmland -Farmland to non-agricultural use? Conclusion The proposed project will occur on private land owned by Pacific Gas and Electric. No conversion of land use, including agricultural lands, would occur as a result of this project. No impact would occur. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially __X_ to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable X air quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air -X-- quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? The project site is located in the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), which monitors air quality at nine locations throughout the County. The APCD shares responsibility with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) for ensuring that all State and Federal ambient air quality standards are attained within the District. The closest station to the proposed project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo at Marsh Street. Table 1 CITY OF SAN LUIS CiBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Cg-f 0 Alf MOMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenoally Potentially Cess Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated shows air quality data for criteria pollutants measures at this station foi 1998-2000. Table 1. Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data from the City of San Luis Obispo at Marsh Street Monitoring Station. Pollutant Parameter Federal California Standard Monitoring Results Standard 1998 1999 2000 1-hour Ozone maximum 0.12 ppm 0.09 ppm 0.07 0.09 0.08 Days above 0 0 0 state standard Carbon 8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm 2.34 3.13 2.25 Monoxide maximum Days above 0 0 0 state standard PM-10 24-hours 150 pq/m3 50 m 32.2 42.0 44 Days above 0 0 0 state standard Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. The EPA has jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Air act to develop standards. The ARB has jurisdiction under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Clean Air Act to develop California air quality standards, to require regional plans to attain these standards, and to coordinate the preparation by local air districts of plans required by both the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. The Federal and State ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes attempt to avoid health-related effects. As a result, the Federal and States standards differ in some cases. In general, the California state standards are more stringent. This is particularly true for ozone and fine particulate matter(PM-10). Both ozone and PM-10 are considered regional pollutants in that concentrations are not determined by proximity to individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Thus, the data shown in Table 1 for ozone and PM-10 provide a good characterization of levels of these pollutants on the project site. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant, i.e., high concentrations are normally only found very near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless, odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore, are usually only found in or near areas of high traffic volumes. The project site is actually 4 miles outside the nearest town of Los Osos in a more rural setting. As a result, the data shown in Table 1 for carbon monoxide are most likely higher concentrations than would be found near the proposed project site. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1998 require that the ARB, based on air quality monitoring data, designate portions of the state where Federal or State ambient air quality standards are not met as"non-attainment areas". This designation is different under the federal and state legislations due to differences between national and state standards. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of the Federal air quality standards and is not subject to the planning requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. Under the state air quality program, San Luis Obispo County has been identified as a non-attainment area for both ozone (1-hr standard) and PM-10 by the ARB. a-b)Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an existing or projected air quality violation. Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of air quality attainment plans for the County of San Luis Obispo, specifically the 1995 County Clean Air Plan (CAP). c) The APCD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (e.g. children, the elderly, the acutely ill, and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. With the primary surrounding land uses being open space, sensitive receptors are not located in high densities near the project site. With the implementation of the mitigation measures describe below, impacts to sensitive receptors will be reduced to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2^000^^2-- Lo ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated less-than-significant levels. d) Implementation of the project would not create objectionable odors. No impact would occur. e) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in long-term changes in air quality. However, project construction activities will likely result in short-term changes in air quality. These temporary construction emissions include tailpipe emissions of ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, and PM-10 and fugitive dust emissions from earth-moving activities and vehicle travel on unpaved roads. Fugitive dust can be emitted by the action of equipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing, grading and earthmoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. In addition, demolition of existing pavement and revetment, and removal of demolition debris from the site, will also generate dust. However, the impacts are temporary, and with the mitigation measures described below, impacts to air quality will be less-than-significant. The APCD specifies Best Available Control Technology for construction projects contained within the CEQA.Air Quality Handbook (San Luis Obispo County APCD, 1997). Equipment Emission Control Measures: AIR-1: The District shall require that all fossil fueled equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned according to manufacturer specifications. AIR-2: The District shall require that all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment, including but not limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors,auxiliary power units,shall be fueled exclusively with ARB motor diesel fuel. AIR-3: The District shall require installation of oxidation catalysts on the two pieces of diesel-fueled equipment projected to generate the greatest emissions. It is expected that bulldozers would be the highest emitters. Dust Control Measures: These measures augment dust control requirements of Section 7-8.1 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. AIR-4: During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after each day's activities cease. AIR-5: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting down such areas in the morning and after work Is completed for the day and whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. AIR-6: Stockpiled earth material shall be sprayed as needed to minimize dust generation. AIR-7: During construction, the amount of disturbed area shall be minimized, and on-site vehicle speeds should be reduced to 15 mph or less. AIR-8: Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates more than one month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. AIR-9: After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil shall be treated immediately by watering or revegetating or spreading soil binders to minimize CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKusT.2002 Cg - I� ATTACHMENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SourceT otentially Potentially Less Than No ignificant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated dust generation until the area is paved or otherwise developed to prevent dust generation. AIR-10: Grading and scraping operations shall be suspended when winds exceed 20 mph (one hour average). AIR-11: All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks associated with construction activities should be paved as soon as possible. In addition, building and other pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. AIR-12: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status -X--- species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, — or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California rX Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or -X--; ordinance (e.g. Heritage Trees)? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with _-X_: established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) --X-- through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? tai CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 C4.0 ,AFTAIGHMENT 1 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially t e55 Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) The proposed project would provide fish passage past the existing blocked culvert through replacement of the culvert with a free—span bridge. The project also entails the installation of a series of low rock weir drop structures to restore the original grade of the creek, which has been modified over time by down- cutting and sediment accumulation behind the blocked culverts. The total length of affected stream channel within the grading footprint would be approximately 550ft, and would be temporarily dewatered during project construction. Construction access would be from the north bank of the creek. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent long-term benefits to sensitive biological resources in Coon Creek (i.e. removal of an impassable fish barrier). A biological reconnaissance and review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG, December 2002) was conducted to identify reported occurrences of special-status habitat, plant and animal species in the vicinity of the proposed project site. The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) was queried for special-status species occurrences within the USGS 'Port San Luis' and 'Morro Bay South' quadrangle maps. These 7.5-mile quadrangles encompass the proposed project site and its immediate surroundings. The results of the CNDDB query were then reviewed to evaluate the potential for occurrence of special-status species within or near to the proposed project site. A field reconnaissance of the site was performed by qualified City-appointed biologists on 3/5/03 and 3/11/03 to evaluate the area for its potential to support special-status species. In addition, the document "A Sensitive Resource Inventory for Diablo Canyon Lands" (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995) was referred to in the preparation of this biological assessment. This document describes the results of an extensive survey of the area for special-status species, which encompassed the proposed project site,commissioned by Pacific Gas & Electric in 1995. Special-Status Species The query of the CNDDB returned 34 federally or state listed special-status species from the two selected quadrangles (plus two with global, but no federal or state special-status). The sensitive species identified as potentially being present in the vicinity of the proposed project site are listed in Tables 2 and 1 along with an evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed project to these species. Field reconnaissance confirmed that none of the globally-listed sensitive habitat types returned by the query (see Attachment 2) are represented at the proposed project site. TABLE 2. Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the Coon Creek Fish Passage Enhancement Project Common Name Latin Name Occurrences State Federal FR-E-D ONPS" (Port San Luis& code* Morro Bay South USGS Quads) Arctostaphylos Species of Manzanitt Arroyo La Cruz crozensis 8 None Concern 2-2-3 1 B a Morro Manzanita Arctostaphylos 9 None Threatened 2-3-3 1B morroensis Oso Manzanita Arctostaphylos 2 None None 3-2-3 16 osoensiS Pecho Manzanita Arctostaphylos g None Species of 2-2-3 1 B pechoensis Concern Arctostaphylos Dacite Manzanita tomentosa ssp 1 None None 3-3-3 1B daciticola Arctostaphylos CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20002Q , c-1 111 411AUHMENT 1 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated wellsii Astragalus Miles's Milk-Vetch didymocarpus var 2 None None 2-2-3 1 B milesianus San Luis Mariposa Calochortus Lily obispoensis 1 None None 2-2-3 1 B Cambria Morning- Calystegia Species of Glory subacaulis ssp 1 None Concern 3-2-3 1 B episcopalism San Luis Obispo Carex 1 None None 2-2-3 1 B Sedge obispoensis Obispo Indian Castilleja Paintbrush densiflora ssp 5 None None 2-2-3 1 B obispoensis Salt Marsh Bird's- Cordylanthus Beak mantimus ssp 4 Endangered Endangered 2-2-2 1 B maritimus Beach Spectaclepod Dithyrea maritime 2 Threatened Species of 3-3-2 1 B Concern San Luis Obispo Dudleya abramsii 1 None None 3.2-3 1 B Serpentine Dudleya ssp bettinae Dudleya Blochman's Dudleya blochmaniae ssp 2 None None 2-3-2 1 B blochmaniae Blochman's Leafy Erigeron 3 None None 2-3-2 1B Daisy blochmaniae Indian Knob Eriodictyon 5 Endangered Endangered 3-3-3 is Mountainbalm altissimum Lasthenia Coulter's Goldfields glabrata ssp 1 None None 2-3-2 1 B coulteri Jones's Layia Layia jonesii 3 None None 2.3-2 1 B San Luis Obispo Monardella 1 None Species of 2-2-3 1 B Monardella frutescens Concern Most Beautiful Streptanthus Species of Jewel-Flower albidus ssp 2 None Concern 2-2-3 1 B peramoenus California Seablite Suaeda 7 None Endangered 3-3-3 1 B califomica Splitting Yam Lichen Sulcaria isidiifera 2 None Species of N/A N/A Concern 'R-E-D Code. CNPS uses a scheme that combines three complimentary elements that are scored independently. These components are: rarity, which addresses the extent of the plant, both in terms of numbers of individuals and the nature and extent of distribution; endangerment, which embodies the perception of the plant's vulnerability to extinction for any reason; and distribution, which focuses on the overall range of the plant. Each element in the code is divided into three classes or degrees of concern, represented by the number 1,2,or 3. In each case, higher numbers indicate greater concern.. "CNPS Plant Lists. 1 B: Plants are rare,threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere;2: rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere. �r CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 �g• cS1 ATTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated TABLE 3. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the vicinity of the Coon Creek culvert and fish passage enhancement project Common Name Latin Name Occurrences State Federal CDFG (Port San Luis& Morro Bay South LISGS Quads) Birds Species Coopers Hawk Accipiter cooperii 1 None None Of Concern Laterallus jamaicensis 2 Species of California Black Rail cotumiculus Concem Threatened None California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris 1 Endangered Endangered None obsoletus Mammals Dipodomys Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat heermanni 13 Endangered Endangered None morroensis Neotoma lepida Species San Diego Desert Woodrat intermedia 5 None None of Concern Reptiles&Amphibians Species Black Legless.Lizard Anniella pulchra nigra 2 None None of Concern Phrynosoma Species of Species California Horned Lizard coronatum frontale 1 Concern None of Concern Species California Red-Legged Frog Rana aurora draytonii 3 Threatened None of Concern Fish Eucyclogobius Species Tidewater Goby newberryi 5 Endangered None of Concern Steelhead Trout Onchorhynchus 3 Threatened None None mykiss irideus invertebrates Morro Shoulderband Snail Heiminthglypta 4 Endangered None None walkeriana Birds Three special-status birds were identified from the CNDDB as potentially occurring in the proximity of the proposed project site. Neither the California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis cotumiculus) nor the California Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) are likely to occur within the proposed project area. Rails primarily inhabit open marshland, estuaries and swamps, the dense riparian vegetation represented at the project site is not ideal habitat for either species. The likelihood of either species of Rail being present within the proposed project site is low. There is a possibility that a pair of Coopers Hawks (Accipiter cooperii) could nest in the vicinity of the proposed project site prior to the commencement of construction. However, this is .unlikely as the �r CITY OF SAN Luis OBispo 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 N_ I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues. Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated proposed start date for the project(8/15/03) is close to the end of the breeding season for this species. A pre-construction nest survey of the riparian corridor in, and surrounding the proposed project site should be made by a qualified biologist. California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora dratonii) The California red-legged frog (CRLF) was listed in May 1996 as federally threatened and is a California species of special concern. California red-legged frogs require a distinct habitat consisting of both aquatic and riparian components. Adult frogs need still or slow moving water that is relatively deep, with shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. They are generally found near permanent water bodies such as; small ponds, quiet pools along streams, reservoirs, springs, lakes, and marshes. The California red-legged frog prefers aquatic habitats with little or no flow,the presence of surface water to at least early June, surface water depths to at least 0.7-1.0m, and the presence of fairly sturdy underwater supports, such as cattails. The largest densities of this species are typically associated with dense stands of overhanging willows and an intermixed fringe of sturdy emergent vegetation. Breeding takes place between November and March. The frogs breed in small temporary ponds, lakes, in potholes, in overflows from rivers and lakes, or in slow moving rivers. Breeding is temperature- dependant, only when the air temperature reaches a certain temperature does breeding begin. There are three occurrences of this species listed by the CNDDB within the 'Morro Bay South' and 'Port San Luis' U.S.G.S. quadrangles. The closest occurrence to the proposed project site is approximately 3 miles north, close to Morro Bay. The document "A Sensitive Resource Inventory for Diablo Canyon Lands" (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995) reports that no CRLF's were found in the area, and that Coon Creek represents 'low suitability habitat' for this species. However, as occurrences of CRLF are reported within several miles of the site,the potential of this species to occur within the proposed project site is predicted to be moderate. The presence of CRLF within the proposed project site will be assumed. Black Legless Lizard (Anniella pulchra nigra) This secretive fossorial lizard is common in suitable habitats in the Coast Ranges from the vicinity of Antioch, Contra Costa Co. south to the Mexican border. Legless lizards are of spotty occurrence throughout the rest of their range, which includes the floor of the San Joaquin Valley from San Joaquin Co. south, the west slope of the southern Sierra, the Tehachapi Mountains west of the desert, and the mountains of southern California. They are common in several habitats but especially in coastal dune, valley-foothill, chaparral, and coastal scrub types. This lizard usually forages at the base of shrubs or other vegetation either on the surface or just below it in leaf litter or sandy soil. Legless lizards eat insect larvae, small adult insects, and spiders (Stebbins, 1954). Legless lizards sometimes seek cover under surface objects such as flat boards and rocks where they lie barely covered in loose soil. They are often encountered buried in leaf litter and commonly burrow near the surface through loose soil. Legless lizards have a relatively low thermal preference (Bury and Balgooyen, 1976), which allows them to be active on cool days as well as early in the morning and even at night during warmer periods, at which time mid-day activity is reduced. Individuals from coastal and southern localities are probably active all year with only brief periods of winter inactivity `/ CITY OF SAN Luis Omspo 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL.CHECKLIsT 2002 eq�n eaa �s9�9lIYtl01C6V 9 8 , Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Titan No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless impact Mitigation Inc orated The CNDDB reports two occurrences of this species within 3 miles of the proposed project site; one at Morro Bay state park, and one at Islay Creek in Montana De Oro state park. In both cases, lizards were found in association with dune systems and sandy soils. It is unlikely that this species will be found in the vicinity of the proposed project site as the mixed willow riparian habitat is not optimal. However, presence of the black legless lizard at the proposed project site cannot be entirely ruled out. The likelihood of the presence of the Black Legless Lizard within the proposed project site is low. Southem Steelhead Trout(Onchorhyncus mykiss iddeus) Steelhead trout are the anadromous form of rainbow trout (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Steelhead historically ranged from Alaska southward to the Calif omia-Mexico border, though current data suggests that the Ventura River is presently the southernmost drainage supporting substantial steelhead runs. Periodically, steelhead are reported within the Santa Clara River and Malibu Creek. Southern steelhead are important in that they represent the southernmost portion of the native steelhead range in North America, having ecologically and physiologically adapted to seasonally intermittent coastal California streams. Optimal habitat for steelhead throughout its entire range on the Pacific Coast can generally be characterized by clear, cool water with abundant instream cover (e.g., submerged branches, rocks, logs), well-vegetated stream margins, relatively stable water flow, and a 1:1 pool-to-riffle ratio (Raleigh et al. 1984). However, steelhead are occasionally found in reaches of streams containing habitat which would be considered less than optimal. Steelhead within the Central Coast region begin moving up coastal drainages following the first substantial rainfall of the fall season. Spawning typically occurs in the spring in riffle areas that consist of clean coarse gravels. Deposited eggs incubate for approximately 3 to 4 weeks, with hatched fry rearing within the gravel interstices for an additional 2 to 3 weeks. Emergent fry rear at the stream margins near overhanging vegetation. Juveniles (smolts), after rearing for 1 to 3 years within freshwater, out-migrate to the ocean from March to July, depending on streamflows. All populations of steelhead occurring within the South-Central California Coast Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) Region—which is defined as that geographic region north of the Santa Maria River, northward to (and including) the Pajaro River (and it's tributaries), Santa Cruz County — were listed as Federally Threatened by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in August 1997. Southern steelhead trout are also considered a California Species of Special Concern. The National Marine Fisheries Service lists habitat deterioration due to sedimentation and flooding related to land management practices, and potential genetic interaction with hatchery rainbow trout, as risk factors to steelhead within the ESU. This species is protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act. Trout were observed just upstream of the proposed project site during a habitat suitability survey for steelhead trout conducted in 2000 (T. R. Payne and Associates, 2000). The presence of steelhead trout within the proposed project site will be assumed. The Tidewater Goby(Eucylogobius newberryr) On February 4, 1994, the tidewater goby was designated as 'endangered' within in the entire U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Pacific Region 1. The tidewater goby is a small fish, rarely exceeding 2 inches standard length, and is characterized by large pectoral fins and a ventral sucker-like disk formed by the complete fusion of the pelvic fins. A member of the family Gobiidae, the tidewater goby is the only species in the genus Eucylogobius and is almost unique among fishes along the Pacific coast of the United States in its restriction to waters with low CITY OF SAN Luis Osispo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 cc--�g ITTACHMENT tl Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated. salinities in California's coastal wetlands. All life stages of tidewater gobies are found at the upper end of lagoons in salinities less than 10 parts per thousand (ppt). This lack of a marine phase severely restricts the frequency of genetic exchange between coastal lagoon populations and significantly lowers the potential for natural recolonization of a locality once extirpated. The tidewater goby occurs in loose aggregations of a few to several hundred individuals on the substrate in shallow water less than 3 feet deep, although gobies have been observed at depths of 4.9 to 7.6 feet. Peak nesting activities commence in late April through early May. Larval gobies are found midwater around vegetation until they become benthic. Although the potential for year-round spawning exists, it.is probably unlikely because of seasonal low temperatures and disruptions of lagoons during winter storms. Although usually associated with lagoons, the tidewater goby has been documented in ponded freshwater habitats as far as 5 miles upstream from San Antonio lagoon in Santa Barbara County. The CNDDB lists five occurrences of tidewater goby within the 'Morro Bay South' and 'Port San Luis' U.S.G.S. quads. They have been found 0.5 miles east of Morro Rock; 2 miles upstream in Chorro Creek; 1.5 miles upstream in Los Osos Creek; 0.25 miles offshore of Pt Buchon; and in the intake channel of Diablo Nuclear Power Station. Several of these occurrences are within a 2-mile radius of the proposed project site. Due to the close proximity of the proposed project site to both the cited occurrences and the tidal portion of Coon Creek (i.e. approximately 0.25 miles), the presence of tidewater goby both within, and downstream of the proposed project site will be assumed. Morro Shoulderband Snail(Helminthoglypta walkeriana) The Morro Shoulderband Snail (MSS) is a member of the land snail family Helm inthoglyptidae. It is a native gastropod found only in western San Luis Obispo County, restricted to sandy soils of coastal dune and coastal sage scrub communities near Morro Bay. The species has also been reported from San Luis Obispo (type locality for"morroensis") and 3 miles south of Cayucos (Roth 1985). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the species as 'endangered' on December 15, 1994. At the time of the listing a description of threats to MSS included degradation of habitat due to invasive, nonnative plant species (e.g., veldt grass [Erharta calycina]), structural changes in its habitat resulting from the maturation of dune vegetation, recreational use (e.g. heavy off-road vehicle use), and the destruction of its habitat from increasing development. The proposed project site is located south of, and outside, the Unit 1 (Morro Spit and West Pecho) critical habitat designation for MSS. In addition, the vegetation at the proposed project site is dense mixed willow riparian, and not the preferred sandy soil coastal dune or coastal sage scrub habitat. Recently reported occurrences of this species in marginal habitats surrounding the City of San Luis Obispo are associated with grassland and chaparral habitats (Tenera Environmental pers comm.). There are no reported occurrences of MSS from mixed willow riparian habitats similar to that found at the proposed project site, and no MSS were found during sensitive species surreys of Diablo Canyon lands conducted in 1993 (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995). The likelihood of Morro Shoulderband Snail being present within the proposed project site is very low. Morro Bay Kangaroo Rat(Dipodomys heermanni morroensis) The Morro Bay kangaroo rat lives in stabilized sand dune areas south of Morro Bay. The historical range of the species was probably no more than four square miles and today the species is believed to exist in only one location that covers less than 40 acres. CITY OF SAN LUIS 0813Po 15 INITULL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002.0n ^ X71 �,� ATTA CHsWENT Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Kangaroo rats eat flowers, foliage and fruits, and will sometimes gather food items in their cheek pouches to be carried back to their burrows for storage. Burrows can vary from 12 inches to about 38 inches deep and may contain side tunnels leading to seed caches, multiple surface entrances, or dead ends. The Federal government identified the Morro Bay kangaroo rat as an endangered species in 1970 and automatically protected it under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Although no current population count is available, scientists estimate that no more than 50 kangaroo rats may remain in their native habitat in San Luis Obispo County, California. The few remaining kangaroo rats face a serious threat of extinction because of continued habitat loss and fragmentation. Other threats include predation from domestic animals, and destruction of burrows from off-road vehicles and pedestrians. The very small population size also makes the Morro Bay kangaroo rat vulnerable to extinction from naturally occurring events such as drought or disease. Morro Bay kangaroo rats are essentially found only in disturbed areas. Optimum habitat consists of the earlier successional stages of the coastal sagebrush community which occur on the old, stabilized dune terraces on the south and southeast sides of Morro Bay. The optimum vegetation is essentially herbaceous annuals, with scattered woody perennial shrubs (sagebrush, coyote brush, lupine, and buckwheat) no more than 2 feet in height. Shrub cover may be totally absent, or range as high as 60 percent; ground cover may vary from practically zero to 100 percent. Because of the very limited distribution of the Morro bay kangaroo rat and its very specific habitat type requirements it is highly unlikely that it will be found in the mixed willow riparian habitat present on the proposed project site. Additionally, no mention of this species being present in the area is made in the sensitive species surveys of Diablo Canyon lands conducted in 1993 (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995). The likelihood of Morro bay kangaroo rats being present within the proposed project site is very low. San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) Desert woodrats are found in various habitats throughout southern California (Hall 1981, Zeiner et al. 1990b). The San Diego desert woodrat ranges along the Pacific slope region from Baja California to San Luis Obispo County (Hall 1981). This woodrat usually lives in rock outcrops on slopes with coastal scrub and chaparral vegetation. San Diego desert woodrats have been threatened with loss of habitat as a result of rapid urban expansion along coastal California. San Diego desert woodrats generally build nests in south-facing rocky outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral habitat. Probable desert woodrat nests have been observed in many areas on Diablo Canyon Lands (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995). As the proposed project will only impact a mixed willow riparian vegetation, which is not suitable woodrat habitat the likelihood of this species being present in the proposed project area is very low. California Horned Lizard(Phrynosoma coronatum frontale) The homed lizard occurs in valley-foothill hardwood, conifer and riparian habitats, as well as in pine- cypress, juniper and annual grass habitats. Ranges in the Central Valley from southern Tehama Co. south; in the Sierra foothills from Butte Co. to Tulare Co. below 1200 m (4000 ft); below 1800 m (6000 ft) in the mountains of southern California exclusive of desert regions; throughout the Coast Ranges south from Sonoma Co. This species relies on camouflage for protection and often hesitates to move at the approach of a predator. Horned lizards often bask in the early morning on the ground or on elevated objects such as low CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 20002 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inc orated boulders or rocks. Predators and extreme heat are avoided by homed lizards by burrowing into loose soil. Periods of inactivity and winter hibernation are spent burrowed into the soil under surface objects such as logs or rocks, in mammal burrows, or in crevices. It inhabits open country, especially sandy areas, washes,flood plains and wind-blown deposits in a wide variety of habitats. One occurrence of this species is listed in the CNDDB from Los Osos state park approximately 3 miles from the proposed project site. Due to the low number of occurrences of this species in the area, the distance of the one documented occurrence from the proposed project site, lack of suitable habitat at the project site, and the fact that this species was not named in the 1995 sensitive species survey of Diablo Canyon Lands (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995); the likelihood of this species being present at the proposed project site is low. The likelihood of California Homed Lizards being present within the proposed project.site is low. Proposed Mitigation Measures The California Natural Diversity Data Base lists 11 special status wildlife species within the `Port San Luis' and 'Morro Bay South' U.S.G.S quadrangles. Of these, five are state- or federally-listed, or species of concern, and have the potential to occur within the project site: the California red-legged frog, the Southern steelhead, the tidewater goby, Coopers hawk, black legless lizard and California horned lizard. Due to the nature of the project, the removal of an impassable barrier to fish passage, impacts to these sensitive species will be beneficial in the long term. The potential occurrence of these species in the project site requires the inclusion of mitigation measures to protect their aquatic and riparian habitats during construction. Their habitat requirements must also be addressed under the changed hydraulic conditions following construction. Typical mitigation procedures include daily pre-construction surveys to insure the absence of special status species within work zones, clearing and re-locating any encountered protected species, monitoring of construction activities, and inspection of design considerations (e.g. creation of new in-stream habitat via step-pools). Though the potential presence of these special status species requires careful mitigation of the project site and project design, it is also a good indicator that the project has the potential to benefit many riparian and aquatic species. Improved access to the upper reaches of Coon Creek due to replacement of the blocked culvert with a free-span bridge, will have positive impacts for the entire Coon Creek watershed system. On the basis of reconnaissance surveys conducted on-site (3/11/03), information on the local distribution of plants, and the lack of appropriate micro-habitats (e.g. serpentine based soils), it was concluded that there is little to no potential for special status plant species to occur on-site. Project development is unlikely to have impacts on special status plant species. One special status bird species, Coopers hawk, may have the potential to be an occasional visitor to the proposed project site. The project should have no effect on the breeding success of this species as the timing of construction will be outside of the normal breeding season; although the project may result in a small reduction of the regionally available foraging and/or roosting habitat. The proposed project is expected to have a less-than-significant impact on any special status bird species. Habitat for five other special-status wildlife species could potentially be affected by construction activities at Coon Creek: California red-legged frog Southern steelhead trout Tidewater goby Black legless lizard �r CITY OF SAN LUIS OsisPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 ATTACHMENT 1 Issues,Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated California horned lizard There is high potential for steelhead trout to be present within the proposed project area at the time of construction. Surveys of Coon Creek conducted in 2000 positively identified trout upstream of the proposed project site (T.R. Payne&Associates,2000). Based on the proximity to known occurrences, on-site habitat evaluation, and the results of the 1995 sensitive resource inventory (BioSystems Analysis, Inc and PG&E, 1995), it is predicted that there is moderate potential for the California red-legged frog and tidewater goby to be present within the proposed project site at the time of construction. Due to the lack of suitable habitat at the proposed project site (i.e. riparian rather than dune systems and sandy soils) the potential for both the black legless lizard and the California horned lizard to be present at the proposed project site during construction activities is low. Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed below will minimize the impacts to sensitive biological resources that may be present on the proposed project site: BI0-1 — The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will be consulted prior to design and construction activities. The City of San Luis Obispo would confer with the CDFG, USFWS and NMFS prior to final construction design for the replacement of the Coon Creek culvert to determine if the project site is potentially suitable habitat for California red-legged frog, tidewater goby and steelhead trout. If the CDFG, USFWS and NMFS determines that the proposed project site is potentially suitable habitat, the City would conduct pre- construction protocol surveys for California red-legged frogs, and pre-construction relocation of steelhead trout and tidewater gobies from the proposed project area. The relocation methodology will be approved by the appropriate agency. Specific requirements of CDFG for reducing impacts on stream habitats will be coordinated during the streambed alteration agreement process required under Sections 1601-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code. BIO-2—An on-site biological monitor will be provided. The City of San Luis Obispo will provide an onsite biological monitor for the duration of the construction project. The monitor will survey the project.site each morning prior to the commencement of construction activities for special-status species; if found, special-status species will be relocated by an agency approved biologist to a suitable off site location. The City has two biologists available for monitoring of this project, Dr Michael Clarke (City of San Luis Obispo) — Certified Fisheries Biologist, and Meredith Hardy (California Conservation Corps) — California Red-Legged Frog specialist. Either of these two individuals, or a City-appointed biologist whom has been trained by them, will be onsite during all construction activities. BI0-3: Areas of disturbance in riparian habitat will be minimized and disturbed areas replanted after construction. Construction practices will be used that minimize impacts on existing trees and riparian habitat along Coon Creek. Construction equipment will use the existing road on the north side of the creek to gain access to the project site. Implementation of the proposed project includes riparian re-vegetation of all disturbed access areas. Replacement plants will be monitored for establishment success for a minimum of three years by a qualified biologist. BI0-4: In-channel construction activities will be limited to the summer low-precipitation period. ��r CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002'�� ATTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation incorporated To reduce the potential for impacts on aquatic species and water quality, in-channel construction activities will be limited to the summer low-precipitation period (April 1 — October 15). Limiting construction activities to this period would also reduce the risk of streambank erosion. After construction is completed, streambanks and adjacent areas disturbed by construction activities would be stabilized to avoid increased erosion during subsequent storms and runoff. BI0-6: Silt laden water will not be allowed to enter the live stream. The following measures will be implemented to minimize the turbidity of the water flowing from the proposed project site during instream construction activities. If approved by regulating agencies, a water conveyance/diversion system to dewater the creek during construction activity will be constructed. All pumps used in the diversion will be fitted with appropriately sized mesh to avoid intake of aquatic vertebrate species. Mesh screen size shall be approved by the City fisheries biologist. A silt barrier will be constructed downstream of the construction site. Water accumulating in the dewatered construction site will be pumped to an upland location, allowing percolation and filtering of the silt-laden water before it re-enters the creek. All instream activities will be immediately suspended, and agency representatives immediately contacted, should silt-laden water enter the live stream from the construction site. BI0-6: A construction worker education program will be implemented that includes an explanation of the natural history of sensitive species identified as having the potential to occur of the site (specifically, California red-legged frog), avoidance measures, and federal laws that protect these species. 1310-7: Work and maintenance will only be conducted during clear, dry, daylight hours. Work will not be conducted during periods of rain when frogs tend to be more active. 13I0-8: Vehicle fueling and maintenance will be conducted at an area outside of the creek away from sensitive biological resources. 1310-9: The work zone will be clearly delineated with temporary fencing prior to construction. All activities shall be limited to the designated construction zone. BIO-10: A pre-construction survey for nesting birds will be conducted by a qualified biologist approximately 1 week prior to the commencement of construction. If no breeding or nesting activities are detected near the proposed project site, construction activities may proceed. If however, nesting is observed, the nest may not be directly disturbed without a Section 2081 take permit from CDFG. b) Vegetation at the project site meets the definitions of Riparian Woodland and Northern Coastal Scrub as defined by Hoover in his Vascular Plants of San Luis Obispo County, California (1970). Approximately 25 species of plants were found within the identified worksite, which is 550 feet long and 50 feet wide(approximately 0.6 acre). The most common species within the riparian woodland were arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and yellow willow (S. lasiandra). Understory within the riparian woodland consisted of horsetails (Equisetum sp.), sedges Carex sp.), California blackberry Rubus vitifolius , nettle Urtica holosericea , and some IIIItI� CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 cg-a3 Air, ATTACHMENT 1 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco orated twinberry (Lonicera involucrata). A few small fems were also found along the banks of the creek. All of the species observed within the work area were common species, found through the region in suitable habitats. The northern coastal scrub was a thick shrub community dominated by blackberry, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Rhus diversiloba), California sagebrush (Artemisia califomica), a few coffeeberries (Rhamnus califomica), and a non-native vetch (Vicia sp.). A few minor openings in the brush were occupied by non-native grasses, chiefly brome (Bromus mollis). As with the riparian woodland,the species observed were all ones that were quite common in the immediate area. Impacts to Vegetation: A certain amount of the site vegetation will be removed or otherwise impacted by the project; however, no plant species are expected to be eliminated from the site as a result. Care will be taken to ensure that a maximum of cover over the creek is retained through proper and judicious pruning of the larger willows rather than removal. Rock weir placement will occur from the north bank of the creek only, through identified and cut trails from an existing service road; the south bank of the creek, which appears to be less disturbed than the north bank, will not be affected by the construction. The trails will be marked with protective fencing and a significant area between the trails will be protected. After use, cut. trails will be covered with straw and reseeded with grasses for erosion control purposes, and the native riparian vegetation allowed to reinvade from the adjacent areas. This should allow reestablishment of the riparian woodland and brush within a few years. Review of Potential Plant Species of Concern Some 23 plant species of concern are listed within the 'Morro Bay South'and'Point San Luis'quadrangles by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). These species are listed in Table 2. Review of the list and the project site survey indicate that of these species, none are found, or expected to be found, within the project site. They are either species of dunes, serpentine, open grasslands, or beach strand, habitats which do not occur at or near the project site. Only Sulcaria, the so-called splitting yam lichen, is uncertain in this regard, and the local species S. isidiifera, is reported as an epiphyte on stunted oaks at the Elfin Forest and on larger trees at the more wind-protected Los Osos Oaks Reserve, both in Los Osos. None of the listed species were observed at or near the project site. The implementation of mitigation measures BIO-3; BIO-4; BIO-5 and BIO-9 described above will mitigate for the short-term effects on existing habitat during construction. 0) The proposed project would not significantly conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, as the project lies outside of the City limits. d) Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife and fish in the Coon Creek watershed. Actually, the proposed project will remove an existing barrier that is currently an obstruction to fish movement within the channel. The primary objective of the project is to improve access for Federally threatened Southern steelhead to Coon Creek, increasing migratory corridor lengths and providing access to spawning and rearing areas. Construction impacts to steelhead will be temporary and there will be a net benefit from the project in the long term. e) Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. f) Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. `i CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 200 _ r C �01/`71i ATTACHMENT � Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Conclusion Replacement of the blocked culvert with a free-span bridge, together with the associated instream fish passage improvements, will permanently enhance the overall habitat quality for listed species in Coon Creek. The proposed enhancements will restore Southern steelhead access to approximately six-miles of pristine spawning and rearing habitat. Any short-term impacts to listed species resulting from the implementation of the project can be reduced to less-than-significant levels by the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) -- b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines --X=- 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? - d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The proposed project would not adversely affect any known historic, archeological, or palentological resources. No known archeological or historic resources are located along Coon Creek where construction or earth-moving activities are proposed. However, riparian corridors were typically a desirable feature to prehistoric peoples for camps, villages, and procurement areas. Although no cultural resources have been recorded from the project site, it is still possible that sub-surface archeological materials may be present. It is remotely possible that such materials could be encountered during site preparation and construction. This potential impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation because the City would take the following measures to ensure that subsurface sites are not accidentally destroyed. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides direction for dealing with archeological sites that are found during construction. The following are mitigation measures described in the CEQA guidelines: ARCH-1: If archeological sites (artifacts of stone, bone, or shell, glass or ceramics) were found during construction, the contractor would stop all work immediately within 100 feet and consult a qualified archeologist for immediate evaluation of the find. If the find were determined to be an important archeological resource, the City in consultation with the state Historic Preservation Officer would develop appropriate treatment measures. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow recovery of an archeological sample would be made available by the contractor. Construction work may continue on other parts of the site while archeological mitigation takes place. ARCH-2: In the event that any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, no further excavation of disturbance will occur at the site or in any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: • The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and • If remains are of native American origin: o The descendents from the deceased native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, o Or the native American Heritage Commission has been unable to identify a descendent CITY OF SAN.LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY.ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002. Cg r W ATTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated or the descendent has failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the Commission. 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient -X--= manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral -X- resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or recovery site. No impact would occur. 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the ro'ect: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial ;-X-- adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? =-X-- III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? --X--- IV. -X--IV. Landslides or mudflows? �X- b) Result.in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? -X--' c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or - X-- that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B `X== of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? A) Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the exposure to or risk of geologic hazards;. the project would not result in the creation of new development that would expose people or structures to seismic risks, including liquefaction and landsides. b) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in long-term increases in erosion and soil loss. Slope set-back, riparian plantings, and biotechnical bank stabilization methods (components of the proposed project) would reduce long-term erosion and soil loss. Temporary impacts from construction-related activities would result in disturbance of ground surface. Construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, water and wind. Soil erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from the land surface by wind, water or gravity. Most natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate increases when the land is cleared or altered and left disturbed. Construction activities remove the protective cover of vegetation that could result in localized accelerated wind and water erosion. The proposed project includes riparian re-vegetation; however, short-term increases in soil erosion would occur due to construction activities. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce possible soil erosion effects during construction to a less-than-significant.effects: GEO-1: Implement erosion and sediment control plan: The City of San Luis Obispo would require construction contractors to prepare an erosion and CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 k o ATTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less'Man No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated sediment control plan that identifies BMP's to reduce erosion of disturbed soils during construction activities. The goal of the plan would be to minimize wind and water erosion and transport sediments during construction. The plan would include measures for containing hazardous materials associated with construction (e.g. diesel fuel, oils, solvents), and would describe the location and schedule for BMP's at each project site. The construction engineer would prepare the plan before construction activities begin. The following measures would be considered in the plans to minimize erosion and sedimentation: • Erosion control methods shall include 1) temporary measures, such as flow diversions, temporary ditches, and silt fencing; 2) permanent measures such as rock drop structures, coir logs, erosion control fabrics, and straw wattles; and 3) revegetation measures, including hydro-seeding and planting within the riparian zone. • Flows in the watercourse shall be contained or routed to bypass excavation activities. • Surface disturbance of soil and vegetation would be kept to a minimum; existing access and maintenance roads would be used wherever possible. • The project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality protection measures, and for the implementation of such measures. • Channel excavation work should be avoided during the wet season (normally October 15 to April 1•`), and such work shall be stopped before pending storms, and all disturbed areas stabilized using temporary protection measures. • Any stockpiled soil would be placed and sloped so that it would not be subject to accelerated erosion. • Discharge of all project-related materials and fluids into the creek would be avoided to the extent possible by using hay bales or silt fences, constructing berms or barriers around construction materials, or installing geofabric in the area of disturbance. • After ground-disturbing activities are complete, all graded or disturbed areas would be covered with protective material such as mulch, or re-seeded with native plant species. The plan would include details regarding seeding material,fertilizer, and mulching. c-d) The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soils that are unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project. Soil expansion index measurements are required to determine the presence of expansive soils at the project site. Even if expansive soils are present, the proposed project does not include the construction of any structures that would cause substantial risk to life or property. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the --X— environment through the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the 7environment X-- environment through reasonably foreseeable upset.and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of -X--: hazardous emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result„it CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPo 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Of -Vl ATTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or r-X-- within two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with,the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, ;-X-= injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? a-b)The proposed project does not include any components that entail the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material. No releases of hazardous materials or substances would occur during the implementation of the proposed project. c-d) Potential impacts from temporary emissions due to construction equipment activities are addressed in Section 3, Air Quality. Other hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waster are not predicted to result from the implementation of the project. The project site is not located on a hazardous materials site; it is not located within an airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public use airport;it is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. d) Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan. e) Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the risk of wildfires in the project vicinity. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge — requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g.The production rate of k_- pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of X polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial =-X--; erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial —X_-- flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood -X- Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? �a� CtrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INrnAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 ATTACH?AENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? =X h Otherwise substantially degrade water quali -X--' a) The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b) The proposed project does not require additional water supplies that could deplete existing groundwater supplies. c) The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial sources of polluted runoff. d) The restoration project proposes to create new stable channel bed and banks along the existing channel centerline. A balance of excavation and engineered fill will create a consistent slope throughout the project reach and allow steelhead access to 6 miles of habitat above the blocked culvert. This channel restoration does change the existing drainage pattern through the site; however, long-term impacts are predicted to be beneficial. Proposed construction activities, including excavation and grading, would result in the disturbance of the ground surface, temporarily increasing erosion rates and, potentially, sediment discharge rates into creeks. Effects on water quality during construction, such as increased turbidity, are short-term and would not result in substantial decline in existing water quality in the watershed. Channel modification activities would be followed by various re-vegetation/bank stabilization techniques to minimize discharge of sediment-laden stormwater from entering the creek. These techniques include: bank slope erosion control blankets and riparian re-vegetation to stabilize the ground surface after construction. This temporary impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation procedures discussed in previous sections (i.e. BIO-3; 810-4; 113I0-5; GEO-1) would also be implemented to further reduce temporary construction impacts. e) Implementation of the proposed project would not increase flooding potential onsite or offsite, and would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff. f-g) The proposed project would not place housing within the 100-year flood hazard area, and it would not place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. The gradient control of low rock weirs (0.3m [1 ft] high) to be installed into the creek serve to stabilize channel bed elevations and create scour pool habitat for aquatic organisms. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the ioject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation --X-= of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? __X__ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or --X-- natural community conservationplans? The proposed project is located on private land owned by Pacific Gas & Electric. a) The proposed project would be implemented on private land owned by PG&E; therefore, it will not result in the division of an established community. b) The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project. c) Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or Crry OF SAN Luts OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 02 Al [ACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inc orated natural community conservation plans. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable" noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General X Plan Noise Element; or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels -X--. existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive X -- groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, — would the project expose people residing or working in the �..X- project area to excessive noise levels? a) The proposed project would not result in the generation of long- or short-term noise or the exposure of people to long- or short-term noise levels exceeding local noise thresholds. The proposed project would result only in the generation of temporary noise, most likely lasting less than 3 months. No permanent impact would occur. b-c) Temporary project-related noise would occur from the use of construction equipment and construction activity. Noise levels in construction areas would increase and noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, located near the construction area could be affected. The effect of increased noise levels would be diminished because most construction activity is expected to take place during daylight hours when noise levels are generally the highest and people's tolerance is the highest. d) The proposed channel restoration and culvert replacement project would not be located within an airport land use area or near a private airstrip. The project does not involve locating noise-sensitive land uses near active airports. No impact would occur 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either --X-; directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or –X people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Conclusion The Coon Creek Fish Passage Improvement project would not induce substantial growth, or displace housing units or people. 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for ani r of the ublic services: a) Fire protection? --X- b) Police protection? --X--: c) Schools? --X-= d) Parks? --X-= e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? --X-- f Other public facilities? --X--: Conclusion Ctry OF SAN Luts OsisPo 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Cg,r, f"% r', ENT r Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated The project vicinity is primarily a rural, low population density area. The proposed project would not result in the increased need for police or fire services, or involve the construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts to schools, parks, or other services. 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional --X- parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X-= expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Conclusion The proposed project does not include a recreational or public access component. The project is located on privately owned land to which public access is restricted. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion --X-; management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible --X uses (e.g.farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative .X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? — g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, —X noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? a-b) The Proposed project would not cause long-term increased traffic loads, nor would it cause a long-term level-of-service standard to be exceeded. During construction, truck traffic to and from the site will increase; however, these traffic impacts will be temporary and therefore less-than-significant. Mitigations concerning equipment emissions are described in Section 3, Air Quality. c-e) The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, increased hazards because of design features or incompatible use, inadequate emergency access or inadequate parking capacity. f) The proposed project would not conflict with adopted programs supporting alternative transportation. 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the X- applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new --X-; water treatment, wasterwater treatment, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the --X- project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment --X--. CITY OF SAN LUIS 0eISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 Cg- � out I HPAENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorponited provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to --X-- accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and =-X_-= regulations related to solid waste? Conclusion The proposed channel restoration project would not increase demand for wastewater, water supply, or solid waste facilities. It would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality --X--- of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project does have the potential, in the short-term, to have significant impacts on biological resources, geology/soils resources; and hydrology/water quality; however; implementation of mitigation measures identified above will ensure that the quality of the environment will not be degraded. The project components, including biotechnical bank stabilization, the creation of new stable low-flow channel beds and banks, rock weir installation, the removal of a fish barrier and riparian revegetation, will increase the quality of the environment in the project area and prevent the potential for future bank erosion. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, _X_-- but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable° means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects Cumulative impacts from the proposed project will be beneficial in the long-term. Removal of the blocked culvert will ensure greater migratory access for the federally threatened Central Coast Steelhead to 6 miles of habitat suitable for rearing and spawning. Accordingly, cumulative impacts to watershed aquatic habitat quantity and quality and water quality conditions will most lik ly be positive. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will X----' cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly*? The development of the project as proposed would not cause any substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. All potentially adverse environmental impacts which may be associated with the proposed project will be mitigated to a level of less-than-significant through the implementation of the mitigation measures identified. CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPo 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIsT 2002 0g^3 �- ATTACHMENT 1 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions-of theproject_ _ 19. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. BioSystems Analysis, Inc., and Pacific Gas Electric. 1995. A Sensitive Resource Inventory for Diablo Can on Lands. 152 pp. 2. Bury, R. B., and T. G. Balgooyen. 1976. Temperature selectivity in the legless lizard,Anniella pulchra. Co eia. 152-155. 3. California Department of Fish and Game, 2002. Califomia Natural Diversity Database. Special status wildlife and plant species search for Morro bay South and Port San Luis quadrangles, California. 4. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo General Plan. Community Development Department. Au ust 1994. 5. County of San Luis Obispo. 1997. CEQA Air Ouality Handbook-Air Quality Control District San Luis Obispo. 3 p. 6. Hall, E. R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, 2nd ed John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1,181 7. McEwan, D. and T. A.Jackson. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for claifornia. California Department of Fish and game, Sacramento, CA. 234pp. 8. Raleigh, R. F.,T. Hickman, R. C. Soloman, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information: rainbow trout. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D. C. Report FWS/OBS-82/10.60. 9. Roth, B. 1985. Status surrey of the banded dune snail, Helminthoglypta walkeriana. Unpublished report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 27 +figures 10. Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York. 536 pp 11. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997. Guidance on site assessment and field surveys for California red- legged edle ed Frogs. February 1997. Ventura. California 12. T. R. Payne and Associates. 2000. HIS Assessment of Coon Creek and-San Luis Obispo Creek. City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department, SLO, CA 93401. 28 13. Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M White, eds. 1990b. California's Wildlife Volume III: Mammals California Department of Fish and Game California Interagency Wildlife Task Group, Sacramento. 407 Attachments: 1. Project vicinity map 2. CNDDB list of sensitive species for U.S.G.S. quadrangles'Port San Luis'and 'Morro Bay South' Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incotporated TOP01 map Printed on from ei rnia.tp0 and Un0 a .tpq 121°15.000'W 121.04.000'W 120°53.000'W 120°42.000'W 120°31.000'W 120°20.000'W WGS84120-01.000'W 4 . t y r: l z ,-..rar%R Project Point Boman A✓ct. a tlStrt:;rPA1F1--'�-aq..—. 1 ase owLS ti,J fFt[T'�•.� ;-';tom r l\'.: \\/J .T.. �� • it �`` j\.r ��Sl.•Sl'4 Tom. II~��iA'EE PA6H', \ \ LAt•Xeea A �l h•e\. �1 6 - �_-, L :.. rmRX/X(r1,XB)bmulaoamq.Xrr. - Ia 1, $ 1 TA DARD I wRw4l.H •w". ) r 1 I M Mo Z ni4pw j I ••r r•. F n\ r5q M.vo,]r � Z m �' � �I San N i;:n'xe �." ,,.{t � .. ,. a••r. � °til •�y!J ) ` 0. 5 P ORES z SII y '�' c\x, Is.� — a 1 tiC z p VI 1 ru, L �..i 1l1 Orowr ClbHwonr FOREST m . li ) � 1 \. z an lee as a: I a ,.. Z O Tb ( .r.xw xt.r,w'"', N ..A R'aRriR ittM1rfi -I. WiW Rx O N , 1 .. Xrx Tas / rx• O g ' 77 ov M c � 1 f R I • r �.o � � �� � M e m z •oew,1 z o ierr i (n. m 121-15.000'W 121°04.000'W 120°53.000'W 120°42.000'w 120°31.000'W 120°20.000'w WGSB4 120°01.000'W TAM 0 s to 1s m 25 .kg 1M' 0 3 1011 111 75 30 31 O� FRAwflom lT)P0107001 NNXueI br Xo www. .raN Attachment 1. Vicinity Map Project: Coon Creek Fish Passage Improvement Project Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN Luis O8tsp0 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CMECKusT 2002 r ('a, fL Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources sources Potemuaq Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Attachment 2 California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base List of Elements and Status by Scientific Name Federal/ Global/ CNPS/ CDFG Scientific/Common Name State Status State Rank R-E-D Status 1.ACCIPITER COOPERII None/ G5/ SC COOPER'S HAWK None S3 2.ANNIELLA PULCHRA NIGRA None/ G3G4T2 SC BLACK LEGLESS LIZARD None T3Q/S2 3.ARCTOSTAPHYLOS CRUZENSIS Species of G2/ 1B/ ARROYO DE LA CRUZ MANZANITA Concern/None S2.2 2-2-3 4. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS MORROENSIS Threatened/ G2/ 1B/ MORRO MANZANITA None S2.2 2-3-3 5.ARCTOSTAPHYLOS OSOENSIS None/ G1/ 1B/ OSO MANZANITA None S1.2 3-2-3 6.ARCTOSTAPHYLOS PECHOENSIS Species of G2/ 1B/ PECHO MANZANITA Concern/None S2.2 2-2-3 7. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS TOMENTOSA None/ G4T1/ 1B/ SSP DACITICOLA None S1.1 3-3-3 DACITE MANZANITA 8. ARCTOSTAPHYLOS WELLSIINone/ G2/ 1B/ WELLS'S MANZANITA None S2.1? 2-3-3 9. ASTRAGALUS DIDYMOCARPUS None/ G5T2/ 1B/ VAR MILESIANUS None S2.2 2-2-3 MILES'S MILK-VETCH 10.CALOCHORTUS OBISPOENSIS None/ G2/ 1B/ SAN LUIS MARIPOSA LILY None S2.1 2-2-3 `i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKUsT�210002 cr m'it-11ACHREN T Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated Federal/ Global/ CNPS/ CDFG Scientific/Common Name State Status State Rank R-E-D Status 11.CALYSTEGIA SUBACAULIS Species of G3T1/ 1B/ SSP EPISCOPALIS Concern/ S1.2 3-2-3 CAM 3RIA MORNING-GLORY None 12.CAREX OBISPOENSIS None/ G2/ IB/ SAN LUIS OBISPO SEDGE None S2.2 2-2-3 13.CASTII.I F A DENSIFLORA None/ G5T2/ 1B/ SSP OBISPOENSIS None S2.2 2-2-3 OBISPO INDIAN PAINTBRUSH 14.CENTRAL DUNE SCRUB None/ G2/ None S2.2 15.CENTRAL MARITIME CHAPARRAL None/ G2/ None S2.2 16.COASTAL AND VALLEY None/ G3/ FRESHWATER MARSH None S2.1 17.COASTAL BRACKISH MARSH None/ G2/ None S2.1 18.CORDYLANTHUS MARITIMUS Endangered/ G4?T2/ 1B/ SSP MARITIMUS Endangered S2.1 2-2-2 SALT MARSH BIRD'S-BEAK 19.DANAUS PLEXIPPUS None/ G4/ MONARCH BUTTERFLY None S3 20.DIPODOMYS HEERMANNI Endangered/ G3G4T1/ MORROENSIS Endangered S1 MORRO BAY KANGAROO RAT 21.DITHYREA MARITIMA Species of G2/ IB/ BEACH SPECTACLEPOD Concern/ S2.1 3-3-2 Threatened 22.DUDLEYA ABRAMSII Nond G3TI/ 1B/ SSP BETTINAE None SI.2 3-2-3 SAN LUIS OBISPO SERPENTINE DUDLEYA CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 e4-2�0 A a rACHPA a a Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources SonTces Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inc orated Federal/ Global/ CNPS/ CDFG ScientifdCommon Name State Status State Rank R-E-D Status 23.DUDLEYA BLOCHMANIAE None/ G2T2/ IB/ SSP BLOCHMANIAE None S2.1 2-3-2 BLOCHMAN'S DUDLEYA 24.ERIGERON BLOCHMANIAE None/ G2/ 1B/ BLOCHMAN'S LEAFY DAISY None S2.2 2-2-3 25.ERIODICTYON ALTISSIMUM Endangered/ G2Q/ 1B/ INDIAN KNOB MOUNTAINBALM Endangered S2.2 3-3-3 26.EUCYCLOGOBIUS NEWBERRYI Endangered/ G3/ SC TIDEWATER GOBY None S2S3 27.HELMINTHOGLYPTA Endangered/ Gl/ WALKERIANA None SI MORROSHOULDERBAND (=BANDED DUNE)SNAIL 28.LASTHENIA GLABRATA None/ G4T3/ 1B/ SSP COULTERI None S2.1 2-3-2 COULTER'S GOLDFIELDS 29.LATERALLUS JAMAICENSIS Species of G4T1/ COTURNICULUS Concern/ S1 CALIFORNIA BLACK RAIL Threatened 30.LAYIA JONESII Species of G1/ 1B/ JONES'S LAYIA Concern/None S1.1 3-2-3 31.MONARDELLA FRUTESCENS Species of G2/ 1B/ SAN LUIS OBISPO MONARDELLA Concern/ S2.2 2-2-3 None 32. NEOTOMA LEPIDA INTERMEDIA None/ G5T3?/ SC SAN DIEGO DESERT WOODRAT None S3? 33.NORTHERN COASTAL None/ G3/ SALT MARSH None S3.2 34.ONCORHYNCHUS MYKISS Threatened/ G5T2/ IRIDEUS STEELHEAD None S2 SOUTH/CENTRAL CALIFORNIA COAST ESU 35.PHRYNOSOMA CORONATUM Species of G4T3T4 SC FRONTALE Concern/ /S3S4 CALIFORNIA HORNED LIZARD None CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 22002 "TTACHMENT I Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER# Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated . Federal/ Global/ CNPS/ CDFG ScientifietCommon Name State Status State Rank R-E-D Status 36.RALLUS LONGIROSTRIS Endangered/ G5TI/ OBSOLETUS Endangered S1 CALIFORNIA CLAPPER RAIL 37.RANA AURORA DRAYTONII Threatened/ G4T2T3 SC CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG None S2S3 38. STREPTANTHUS ALBIDUS Species of G2T2/ IB/ SSP PERAMOENUS Concern/ S2.2 2-2-3 MOST BEAUTIFUL JEWEL-FLOWER None 39.SUAEDA CALIFORNICA Endangered/ GI/ IB/ CALIFORNIA SEABLITE None SLI 3-3-3 40.SULCARIA ISIDIIFERA Species of G1/ / SPLITTING YARN LICHEN Concern/ S1.1 None 41.TRYONIA IMITATOR None/ G2G3/ MIMIC TRYONIA(--CALIFORNIA None S2S3 BRACKISHWATER SNAIL) 42. VALLEY NEEDLEGRASS None/ G1/ GRASSLAND None S3.1 Date: 03/10/2003 Government Version Report:ELMLISTS Information dated 12/02/2002 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST02_ „/