HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/1991, C-5 - CREEK DIVERSION CONSULTANT RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
AUTHORIZING CONSULTANT SELECTION AND AGREEMENT FOR THE
HANSEN AND GULARTE CREEKS DIVERSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
WHEREAS, the City Council has directed staff to proceed with
work on the diversion of Hansen Creek and Gularte Creek to
supplement city water supply; and
WHEREAS, staff has negotiated an agreement with Tenera
Environmental Services for preparation of an environmental impact
report in compliance with state and city requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
SECTION 1. The certain agreement, attached hereto marked
Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference, between the
City and Tenera Environmental Services is hereby approved and the
Mayor is authorized to execute the same.
SECTION 2 . The City Finance Director shall transfer and
encumber $15,000 from the Water Fund (Groundwater Phase 3) to
Account No. 050-9744-092-570 for consultant services and related
expenses.
SECTION 3 . The City Clerk shall furnish a copy of this
resolution and a copy of the executed consultant's agreement
approved by it to the Finance Director, the Community Development
Director, and Tenera Environmental Services.
On motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of
1991.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Resolution No.
APPROVED:
City dministrative Officer
t tt ne
Al
Fi n Director
Community Deve Ment Director
A P--�
Utilities Director
gmD: crks-cc.wp
EIGiIBIT 1
CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement, made this 6th day of February 1991, by
and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, California (hereinafter
referred to as "City") , and TENERA Environmental Services,
(hereinafter referred to as "Consultant") .
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, City desires to retain certain services in
conjunction with environmental review for the diversion of Hansen
Creek and Gularte Creek for city water supply. The services
being provided by Consultant under this contract are preparation
of draft and final environmental impacts reports pursuant to
C.E.Q.A and the city's Environmental Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, City desires to engage Consultant to provide
services by reason of its qualifications and experience for
performing such services, and Consultant has offered to provide
the required services on the terms and in the manner set forth
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual covenants,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. PROJECT COORDINATION
a. City. The Community Development Director shall be the
representative of the city for all purposes under this
agreement. The director, or his designated
representative, Glen Matteson, .Associate Planner,
hereby is designated as the Project Manager for the
City. He shall supervise the progress and execution of
this agreement.
b. Consultant. Consultant shall assign a single Project
Manager to have overall responsibility for the progress
and execution of this agreement for Consultant.
Barbara Russell is hereby designated as the Project
Manager for Consultant. Should circumstances or
conditions subsequent to the execution of this
agreement require a substitute Project Manager for any
reason, the Project Manager designee shall be subject
to the prior written acceptance and approval of City's
project manager. Consultant's Project Team is further
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference. The individuals
identified and the positions held as described in
Exhibit "A" shall not be changed except by prior
approval of City.
Consultant Services Agreement 2
Creeks Diversion EIR
2 . DUTIES OF CONSULTANT
a. Services to be furnished. Consultant shall provide all
specified services as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
b. QgAlitXJZontrol. All instruments of service shall
reflect high standards of professional research,
analysis, and written and graphic communication.
City's project manager' shall be responsible for
evaluating quality of work and for the issuance of
consultant payments upon satisfactory delivery,
completion, and city acceptance of work.
C. Laws to be observed. Consultant shall:
(1) Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges
and fees, and give all notices which may be
necessary and incidental to the due and lawful
prosecution of the services to be performed by
Consultant under this agreement;
(2) Keep itself fully informed of all existing and
proposed federal, state and local laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this
agreement, any materials used in Consultant's
performance under this agreement, or the conduct
of the services under this agreement;
(3) At all times observe and comply with, and cause
all of its employees to observe and comply with
all of said laws, ordinances, regulations, orders,
and decrees mentioned above.
(4) Immediately report to the City's Project Manager
in writing any discrepancy or inconsistency it
discovers in said laws, ordinances, regulations,
orders, and decrees mentioned above in relation to
any plans, drawings, specifications, or provisions
of this agreement.
d. Release of reports and information. Any reports,
information, data, or other material given to, or
prepared or assembled by, Consultant under this
agreement shall be the property of City and shall not
be made available to any individual or organization by
Consultant without the prior written approval of the
City's Project Manager.
r
Consultant Services Agreement 3
Creeks Diversion EIR
e. Copies of reports and information. If City requests
additional copies of reports, drawings, specifications,
or any other material in addition to what the
Consultant is required to furnish in limited quantities
as part of the services under this agreement,
Consultant shall provide such additional copies as are
requested, and City shall compensate Consultant for the
costs of duplicating such copies at Consultant's direct
expense.
3 . DUTIES OF CITY
City agrees to cooperate with Consultant and to perform that work
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference.
4 . COMPENSATION
The Consultant will perform the work in phases as described in
Exhibit "A" .
Consultant will bill City on a time and material basis upon
completion of the identified phases. City will pay invoices
according to its normal accounts payable schedule, generally
within 30 days of receipt. The Consultant may not charge more
than the amount shown in Exhibit "A" without prior approval of
the City's Project Manager.
5. TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE WORK
Program scheduling shall follow the attached Exhibit "A" unless
revisions are approved by the City's Project Manager and
Consultant.
Time extensions may be allowed for delays caused by City, other
governmental agencies, or factors not directly brought about by
the negligence or lack of due care on the part of the Consultant.
6. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION
The Community Development Director shall have the authority to
suspend this agreement wholly or in part, for such period as he
deems necessary due to unfavorable conditions or to the failure
on the part of the Consultant to perform any provision of this
agreement. Consultant will be paid the compensation due and
payable to the date of temporary suspension.
C-s- �
Consultant Services Agreement 4
Creeks Diversion EIR
7. SUSPENSION: TERMINATION
a. Right to suspend or terminate. The city retains the
right to terminate this agreement for any reason by
notifying Consultant in writing seven days prior to
termination and by paying the compensation due and
payable to the date of termination; provided, however,
if this agreement is terminated for fault of
Consultant, City shall be obligated to compensate
Consultant only for that portion of Consultant services
which are of benefit to City. Said compensation is to
be arrived at by mutual agreement of the City and
Consultant and should they fail to agree, then an
independent arbitrator is to be appointed and his
decision shall be binding upon the parties.
b. Return of materials. Upon such termination, Consultant
shall turn over to the City immediately any and all
copies of studies, sketches, drawings, computations,
and other data, whether or not completed, prepared by
Consultant, and for which Consultant has received
reasonable compensation, or given to Consultant in
connection with this agreement. Such materials shall
become the permanent property of City. Consultant,
however, shall not be liable for City's use of
incomplete materials or for City's use of complete
documents if used for other than the project
contemplated by this agreement.
8. INSPECTION
Consultant shall furnish city with every reasonable opportunity
for City to ascertain that the services of Consultant are being
performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of
this agreement. All work done and all materials furnished, if
any, shall be subject to the City's Project Manager's inspection
and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve
Consent of any of its obligations to fulfill its agreement as
prescribed.
9. OWNERSHIP OF MATERIALS
All original drawings, plan documents and other materials
prepared by or in possession of Consultant pursuant to this
agreement shall become the permanent property of the City, and
shall be delivered to the City upon demand.
Consultant Services Agreement 5
Creeks Diversion EIR
10. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT
Failure of City to agree with Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under
this agreement, on the basis of differences in matters of
judgment shall not be construed as a failure on the part of
Consultant to meet the requirements of this agreement.
11. ASSIGNMENT: SUBCONTRACTORS• EMPLOYEES
This agreement is for the performance of professional consulting
services of the Consultant and is not assignable by the
Consultant without prior consent of the City in writing. The
Consultant may employ other specialists to perform special
services as required with prior approval by the City.
12. NOTICES
All notices hereunder shall be given in writing and mailed,
postage prepaid, by Certified Mail, addressed as follows:
Glenn Matteson
To City: Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
P.O. Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
To Consultant: Tenera Environmental Services
586 Higuera Street - Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
13 . INTEREST OF CONSULTANT
Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall
not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or
otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the
performance of the services hereunder. Consultant further
covenants that, in the performance of this agreement, no
subcontractor or person having such an interest shall be
employed. Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have
any financial interest under this agreement is an officer or
employee of City. It is expressly agreed that, in the
performance of the services hereunder, Consultant shall at all
times be deemed an independent contractor and not an agent or
employee of City.
C-S �V
Consultant Services Agreement 6
Creeks Diversion EIR
14 . INDEMNITY
Consultant hereby agrees to indemnify and save harmless City, its
officers, agents and employees of and from:
a. Any and all claims and demands which may be made
against City, its officers, agents, or employees by
reason of any injury to or death of any person or
corporation caused by any negligent act or omission of
Consultant under this agreement or of Consultant's
employees or agents;
b. Any and all damage to or destruction of the property of
City, its officers, agents, or employees occupied or
used by or in the care, custody, or control of
Consultant, or in proximity to the site of Consultant's
work, caused by any negligent act or omission of
Consultant under this agreement or of Consultant's
employees or agents;
C. Any and all claims and demands which may be made
against City, its officers, agents, or employees by
reason of any injury to or death of or damage suffered
or sustained by any employee or agent of Consultant
under this agreement, however caused, excepting Soret
however, any such claims and demands which arerthe-s+'� /
result of the negligence or willful misconduct of City,
its officers, agents, or employees;
d. Any and all claims and demands which may be made
against city, its officers, agents, or employees by
reason of any infringement or alleged infringement of
any patent rights or claims caused by the sue of any
apparatus, appliance, or materials furnished by
Consultant under this agreement; and
e. Any and all penalties imposed or damages sought on
account of the violation of any law or regulation or of
any term or condition of any permit, when said
violation of any law or regulation or of any term or
condition of any permit is due to negligence on the
part of the Consultant.
Consultant, at its own costs, expense, and risks, shall defend
any and all suits, actions, or other legal proceedings that may
be brought against or for employees on any such claim or demand
of such third persons, or to enforce any such penalty, and pay
and satisfy any judgment or decree that may be rendered against
City, its officers, agents, or employees in any such suit, action
or other legal proceeding, when same were due to negligence of
6-!57
Consultant Services Agreement 7
Creeks Diversion EIR
the Consultant.
15. WORKERS COMPENSATION
Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of California, which require every
employer to be insured against liability for workers compensation
or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions
of that code, and it certifies that it will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this
agreement.
16. INSURANCE
The Consultant shall provide proof of comprehensive general
liability insurance ($500,000) (including automobile)Qafed- ITIAL
17. AGREEMENT BINDING
The terms, covenants, and conditions of this agreement shall
apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors,
administrators, assigns, and subcontractors of both parties.
18. WAIVERS
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any
term, covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any
provision, ordinance, or law shall not be deemed to be a waiver
of any subsequent breach of violation of the same or of any other
term, covenant, condition, ordinance, or law. The subsequent
acceptance by either party of any fee or other money which may
become due hereunder shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any
preceding breach or violation by the other party of any term,
covenant, or condition of this agreement or of any applicable law
or ordinance.
19. COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES
The prevailing party in any action between the parties to this
agreement brought to enforce the terms of this agreement or
arising out of this agreement may recover its reasonable costs
and attorney's fees expended in connection with such an action
from the other party.
C _s_�a
Consultant Services Agreement g
Creeks Diversion EIR
20. DISCRIMINATION
No discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons
under this agreement because of the race, color, national origin,
ancestry, religion or sex of such person. If Consultant is
found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the
State of California Fair Employment Practices Act or similar
provisions of federal law or executive order in the performance
of this agreement, it shall thereby be found in material breach
of this agreement. Thereupon, City shall have the power to
cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or in part, or to
deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the sum of Twenty-
five Dollars ($25) for each person for each calendar day during
which such person was discriminated against, as damages for said
breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of the State of
California Fair Employment Practices Commission or the equivalent
federal agency or officer shall constitute evidence of a
violation of contract under this paragraph.
If Consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination
provisions of this agreement or the applicable affirmative action
guidelines pertaining to this agreement, Consultant shall be
found in material breach of the agreement. Thereupon, City shall
have the power to cancel or suspend this agreement, in whole or
in part, or to deduct from the amount payable to Consultant the
sum of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250) for each calendar day
during which Consultant is found to have been in such
noncompliance as damages for said breach of contract, or both.
21. AGREEMENT CONTAINS ALL UNDERSTANDINGS
This document represents the entire and integrated agreement
between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or
oral. This document may be amended only by written instrument,
signed by both City and Consultant. All provisions of this
agreement are expressly made conditions. This agreement shall be
governed by the laws of the State of California.
Consultant Services Agreement 9
Creeks Diversion EIR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this
agreement the date first above written.
CONSULTANT
By
Senior Vidd President 2-6-91 .
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1
By
'Mayor
gmD:contract.wp 050-9744-092-570
G�7 ��
Proposed Scope of Work
The work scope proposed for this project consists of the components identified as
Tasks 1 through 9 below. It is intended to provide the City with a focussed EIR
which deals specifically with three issues:
• The quality of fish and wildlife habitat;
• The net amount of water available for human use; and
• The aesthetic quality of private and public open space areas along the creek,
including Mission Plaza in downtown San Luis Obispo.
It is TENERA's understanding that the document (focussed EIR)will be appended
to the Initial Environmental Studies report (dated November 21, 1991)previously
completed for the project by City Planning staff.
Diversion from specific points on Hansen and Gularte Creeks will potentially
impact long stretches of the riparian corridors downstream. Therefore, for the
purpose of this EIR it is important to define what will be the geographical extent, or
boundaries of the study area. The area of impact obviously begins at the point of
diversion for both creeks, however the geographical distance downstream is difficult
to gauge. While exhaustive field surveys may provide better definition of impact
boundaries, they are clearly beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, biological
field surveys will be limited to selected locations found from the point of diversion
downstream to downtown San Luis Obispo. At a minimum, however, the sites
survey areas will include: 1) the points of diversion; 2) the proposed treatment
facility (and surrounding area); 3) downtown Mission Plaza area; and 4) at least
three additional sites along the stream course. These additional sites will be chosen
on the basis of important changes observed in either habitat type (associated
primarily with changes in elevation or topography) or the presence of other water
features (such as springs or seeps).
Consistent with the Request for Proposals (dated January 8, 1991), TENERA is
proposing to allocate the work scope into the following tasks:
Task 1: Conduct an orientation meeting and initial site visit;
Task 2: Review available documentation which is specifically relevant to the
environmental, hydrological, and aesthetic issues related to this EIR.
Task 3: Conduct field fishery,botanical,wildlife, and instream flow surveys
within the study area boundaries.
Task 4: Consult with individuals from the regulatory,public, and academic
sectors who can provide additional insight relative to the
environmental resources associated with Hansen, Gularte, and San
Luis Obispo Creeks.
Task 5: Assess project impacts and recommend mitigation strategies.
Task 6: Evaluate available project alternatives.
Task 7: Prepare administrative and public review drafts of the EIR.
SLO Creek Diversion-EIR Proposa4 Rev.1 1 EXRtStT
Task 8: Provide support during public presentations.
Task 9: Incorporate public comments into the final EIR and submit the final
EIR as scheduled.
Task 1 - Orientation Meeting: Upon contract approval, and prior to conducting the
field surveys (Task 3),TENERA proposes conducting an initial site visit and
orientation meeting to provide the consultants an opportunity to meet City staff
responsible for administering this project. The site visit will permit the
identification of study area access points, inspection of the existing stream diversion
structures, associated pipeline, and the reservoir area where the treatment facility is
proposed. The meeting will afford the opportunity to resolve any scheduling
conflicts, confirm project objectives and deliverables, and to discuss any outstanding
questions or concerns relative to this proposal.
Task 2 -Document Review: A review of the existing background information on
fishery,wildlife, and botanical resources for the project area will be conducted.
TENERA has previously conducted extensive literature reviews as part of other past
and ongoing projects which will be useful in evaluating biological impacts associated
with this project. For example, among its past research efforts, extensive reviews on
steelhead life history, ecology, and water depth/flow relationships necessary for fish
passage, have been conducted and can be utilized for the purpose of fulfilling the
information requirements of this EIR. In addition, the project consultants have
compiled and reviewed numerous scientific documents pertaining to the importance
of wetlands and riparian habitats from an ecological perspective.
Background information on the regional status of birds, mammals, and amphibians
indigenous to the study area will be assimilated to augment the field surveys
described in Task 3. Specific material addressing listed, candidate, and other
species of concern, such as the CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base,will be included
in the review. Previous EIRs will be reviewed for those central coast projects which
are likely to contain information on the botanical and wildlife resources one would
expect to find within the riparian corridors supported by Hansen, Gularte, and San
Luis Obispo Creeks. These reports are proposed for review because given the
timing in which the proposed field surveys will occur(February) in combination with
present drought conditions, it is likely that some species indigenous to the area will
not be observed (for example, certain plant species which may be dormant or not
readily identifiable).
TENERA will request species diversity data from the California Department of Fish
and Game (CDFG) Natural Heritage Division. Results obtained from this data
request will be submitted as part of the draft and final EIRs.
This element of the work scope also includes a review and compilation of a variety
of miscellaneous documents which may be helpful in assessing historical and present
biological resources along the three creeks. For example, CDFG archives a number
of internal administrative reports which may prove useful to the project.
Task 3-Field Investigations: The field survey aspect of this program has been
divided into four discrete subtasks as follows: fishery investigations,vegetation
SL Creek Diversion-EIR Proposal Rev.1 2
surveys,wildlife surveys (avian, mammal, and amphibian), and instream flow
measurements. Further discussion of each element is provided below.
Fisheries: qualitative field surveys will be conducted along the study area to assess
existing fishery resources. Observations will include notes on the fish species
present in the aquatic community and various physical parameters which
characterize the stream habitat. The physical parameters noted will include such
components as water quality(dissolved oxygen, turbidity, and temperature),
stream bed substrate types (gravels, fines), and stream bed profiling.
Observations made during the survey will also include other factors which are
important to sustaining or enhancing healthy populations of selected fish species
in the creek, such as the relative abundance of prey items (macroinvertebrates
and aquatic insects).
Vegetation: The vegetation survey on the study site will be accomplished by
walking over the study site. Qualitative estimates of coverage for dominant plant
communities (riparian, oak woodland, grassland)will be assessed. Relative
abundance of vascular plant species associated with the various habitat types
observed during field survey will be recorded and mapped. Important biological
resources and habitats will be noted on site maps.
Wildlife: a field reconnaissance survey will be conducted to compile a species
inventory and qualitatively determine the relative abundance of the species
encountered. Features of particular significance, such as raptor roost and nest
sites, critical foraging areas, dispersal corridors, and denning sites,will be
indicated on site topographic maps. In assessing the various habitat types
observed at the site, consideration will be given to the likelihood of the utilization
by species of special interest which may not be observed during the limited field
effort.
Instream flow: To quantitatively assess the contribution of water to San Luis
Obispo Creek from other sources besides Hansen and Gularte Creeks (ie.,
springs, resurfaced groundwater, and/or other tributaries) during the present
drought conditions, TENERA proposes conducting a limited number of instream
flow measurements to recorded flows at various locations downstream of the
diversions. Approximately six sites (2 upstream and-4 downstream of the
diversions)will be selected to conduct such stream flow measurements (cfs).
Consideration will be given to the ease of access and ability to collect reliable
flow data. At each location, flows will be determined either by using a V-notch
weir design or by timing the flow while utilizing containers of known volume. In
the event that a major rain event should occur and creek flows exceed 1 cfs, it
may be possible to employ USFWS stream flow techniques to estimate creek
flows.
As part of the administration of the field program,TENERA will take photographs
as appropriate to document flow and other biologically relevant conditions during
the field surveys. If appropriate, and at the discretion of the City of San Luis
Obispo, photographs may be included in written report documentation or used in
support of public presentations. In any case, photographs will be provided to the
City for their future reference.
Task 4-Interviews. Interviews will be conducted with individuals representing a
variety of interest groups, including authorities in those fields key to this project
SLO Creek Diversion-EIR Proposal, Rev.1 3 e -r�
(terrestrial and aquatic biology) to solicit input on the types of impacts that would
likely result from project implementation. These interviews will hopefully provide
valuable insight to augment information compiled from the available literature and
from observations made during field investigations.
Local biologists with expertise in the status and distribution of sensitive biological
resources will include representatives from the California Department of Fish and
Game, Cal Poly State University, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California
Native Plant Society. City and county authorities on water supply will be consulted
to discuss the net amount of water available for human use, given the intermittent
nature of stream flows characteristic in the upstream reach of San Luis Obispo
Creek as well and Hansen and Gularte Creeks. Nearby property owners to the
diversion and water treatment sites will be interviewed so that important
observations which they may have with respect to the project can be documented.
Such observations might include historical sitings of various wildlife species in the
area, short and long term changes in the abundance of fish and wildlife, and/or
important comments about surface water flows prior to 1976 when creek diversions
were discontinued by the City. Interviews with individuals who represent the
downtown business community, such as business owners, or representatives from the
Chamber of Commerce and Business Improvement Association,will be consulted so
that they may provide insight on the aesthetic appeal provided by the creek. A
limited number of interviews will be conducted with individuals encountered
relaxing along the creek.
Task S -Assess Project Impacts and Mitigation Strategies: This task provides a link
between the field investigations (Task 3), compilation of related biological
information (Task 2), and interviews (Task 4). Pursuant to recent state legislation
(AB 3180), recommendations for specific mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements will be proposed. In conjunction with the creek diversions, the City is
considering the withdrawal of additional water from the Firing Range Well. An
assessment of project impacts will include consideration of cumulative impacts
created by this additional well withdrawal. A review of successful mitigation
strategies will provide the basis for these recommendations, and will be augmented
by site-specific adaptations as necessary. Mitigation measures for potential impacts
will be identified and may include such measures as off-site/in-kind habitat
enhancement.
Task 6 - Evaluation of Altematives. Upon completion of the assessment of biological
impacts and development of mitigation programs for the.proposed project, an
analysis of project alternatives on vegetation,wildlife, and fishery resources will be
completed. Specific biological impacts identified for the proposed project can be
used as a basis of comparison with project alternatives. In addition to addressing
the impacts associated with the alternatives, the evaluation will discuss the types of
mitigation which may be required for those alternative projects.
Task 7-Draft EIR TENERA will integrate the results from the above tasks into a
focused draft administrative Environmental Impact Report. The EIR will be in
accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and its guidelines, however the documentation will be limited to the
biological, hydrological and aesthic issues of the proposed project. Maps,
photographs, tables, and figures will be used as appropriate to summarize and
illustrate existing environmental resources and to portray anticipated impacts.
SLO Creek Diversion-EIR Proposal, Rev.1 4 L ,S �'V
The report will contain a list of fish,wildlife, and plant species observed within the
study area. Species not observed but likely to occur will be indicated. Particular
focus will be given to species classified as rare, endangered, or threatened, and the
plant habitats which are considered sensitive, or otherwise unique. Narrative
descriptions of each plant community and wildlife habitat found in the study area
will be provided. Rare plant and animal species and others of particular concern,
such as those which may be known to be declining in the region (for example
steelhead), will be discussed in greater detail in terms of their general habitat
requirements, distribution range, and threats. Populations of such rare species will
be compared to other nearby populations and to the total species distribution when
possible and appropriate.
The report will summarize relevant hydrological information, including historical
stream flow records. Gauging data will be used to graphically depict historical flows
in San Luis Obispo Creek, and will help portray both the seasonal and interannual
variability in these creek flows. Creek flow measurements collected as part of the
field investigations of this study will hopefully provide valuable information on the
relative contribution of Hansen and Gularte Creeks to flows in the upper reaches of
San Luis Obispo Creek. To the extent that information is available and can be
obtained from City water department records on the rates of historical creek
diversions, particularly with respect to dry years, it will be used to help identify
potential project impacts.
Aesthetic quality of private and public open space areas along the creek, including
Mission Plaza,will be discussed. If the creek should go dry as a result of upstream
well withdrawals and diversions, the aesthetic qualities provided by the creek would
be impacted. Quality of life and the scenic beauty of areas such as the downtown
creekside development are important attractions to both visitors and residents of
the San Luis Obispo community_ The aesthetic impacts associated with a dry creek
bed may be linked to economic impacts as well (ie., for those commercial businesses
located along the creek there may be a reduced number of visitors/shoppers in the
downtown area), however it is beyond the scope of this EIR to discuss such potential
economic impacts. The discussion of likely aesthetic impacts will therefore be based
upon information obtained during interviews as described in Task 4.
A draft (administrative) report will be submitted according to schedule to the City
of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. A total of three
administrative copies will be provided. TENERA will be available and is prepared
to discuss pertinent findings and the contents of the draft report with City planning
staff prior to the report submittal. Following City review, their comments will be
addressed and incorporated as appropriate to a public review draft EIR. A total of
one camera-ready original will be provided to the City for this purpose.
Task 8-Public Presentations. TENERA will provide support to the City Planning
Department during public presentations (up to two) in presenting its findings and
discussing the contents of the draft report. If deemed appropriate, TENERA will
also present slides taken during the field investigations.
Task 9-Final EIR Following the public review period, all comments and responses
will be compiled and included in a City Council Agenda Report. TENERA will be
available to answer any questions the council members may have regarding the EIR
SLO Creek Diversion -EIR Prop=4 Rev.1 5. C + S +I�]
findings. A final EIR will be prepared (including comments and responses), and
one camera-ready original will be submitted to the City, as scheduled.
The Project Team
Our proposed biological assessment is divided into three disciplines: botanical;
wildlife; and fisheries, all of which will be under the management of TENERA
Environmental Services. Ms. Barbara RusseU,will serve as the project manager
responsible for the direction and coordination of the project. Ms. Russell will
conduct all field fishery and instream flow investigations. She will also be
responsible for interviews conducted to assess the aesthetic impacts caused by the
project. DY Charles Hanson will serve in a technical advisory capacity. Dr. Hanson
brings to this project a tremendous level of expertise on water development impact
analysis to fishery and other aquatic resources. Ms. Rachel Tierney and Ms
Lawrence Hunt will both provide subconsultant services to TENERA Environmental
in the disciplines of botany and wildlife biology, respectively. Both Ms.Tierney and
Mr. Hunt have conducted numerous biological investigations in Santa Barbara and
San Luis Obispo Counties. Brief biographical profiles for these individuals are
provided below.
Ms. Barbara RusseU(Project Manager): holds a bachelors degree in biology and a
masters degree in business administration, and has more than 11 years of
experience in marine and freshwater biological studies. Ms. Russell has
designed and implemented biological sampling programs,with responsibility for
field logistics, data collection, computer data base management, and statistical
analyses. She has contributed authorship on numerous technical reports for
projects which include evaluations of alternative fish protection technologies
(such as fish diversions, bypass and screening). Ms. Russell is responsible for
instream flow studies being conducted on behalf of the Cambria Community
Services District to evaluate the effects of well withdrawals on steelhead fishery
resources. She has participated on various projects on behalf of the State Water
Contractors and Morro Bay Foundation to evaluate effects of freshwater
diversions on fishery resources.
Dr. Charles Hanson (Technical Advisor): is a fisheries biologist with.extensive
expertise in water quality issues. He has participated on numerous projects
designed to evaluate the effects of water withdrawals and diversions on water
quality in order to develop water project operational criteria for the purpose of
protecting fish, invertebrate, and other wildlife resources. Dr. Hanson provides
technical input and evaluation of various proposed alterations to the instream
flow regimes affecting the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and American Rivers. Dr.
Hanson also serves on the Mokulmne River Technical Advisory Committee
with representatives form CDFG, USFWS, and the State Water Resources
Control Board. Dr. Hanson has contributed to the design, evaluation, and
ongoing monitoring of fish screening, bypass, and protection facilities for
numerous industrial, agricultural, and municipal water diversion projects.
Ms Rachel Tierney (Botanist): has conducted numerous botanical investigations
in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. She has been involved with
recent investigations at Pt. Sal in the development of a resource management
plan in that area. Ms.Tierney holds a bachelors degree in environmental
biology and a masters degree in botany. She has a diversified botanical
background with practical experience in native plant revegetation programs.
SLO Creek Diversion -EIR Proposa4 Rev.1 6 6 ..S r?
She has developed revegetation and restoration plans as part of various
mitigation programs. She has conducted rare plant and animal surveys,
vegetation analyses and mapping,wetland plant surveys and wetland delineation
studies.
Mr. Lawrence Hunt (Wildlife Biologist): has consulted as a wildlife biologist on
several EIR projects throughout San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties.
Mr. Hunt specializes in herpetology and he is presently completing his Ph.D.
dissertation at U.C. Santa Barbara. Mr. Hunt has extensive experience in
conducting avian, mammal, reptile, and amphibian field surveys in southern and
central California. His studies have included design and implementation a
southwestern pond turtle capture and relocation program downstream of
Gibraltar Dam on the Santa Ynez River drainage. In addition, Mr. Hunt has
conducted a study on the Nipomo Dunes on behalf of the Nature Conservancy
which involved the identification of sensitive vertebrate taxa in that area. In
San Luis Obispo County, Mr. Hunt participated on an EIR project for an Islay
Hill development which involved wetland issues. He has contributed to the
authorship of numerous EIR/EIS documents as indicated on his attached
resume.
SLO Creek Diversion -EIR Proposal;Rev.1 7
i
Proposed Schedule and Budget
TENERA will conduct the project according to the approximate time frame
included in the City's RFP. That schedule provides for the submittal of the
administrative draft EIR in 4 weeks, a public review draft in 2 weeks, and City
Council certification within 17 weeks of contract award. Assuming the contract is
awarded by the City Council on February 19, 1991,TENERA is prepared to meet
the following schedule:
Administrative draft EIR complete March 22, 1991
Public review draft EIR published April 5, 1991
Close of public review period May 22,1991
City Council certification of final EIR June 28,1991
TENERA's cost to complete this project as proposed is summarized the attached
table, with a total project cost not to exceed $ 14,755. Administrative and technical
support may be provided by individuals not specifically identified on the attached
table however, the total cost for such support staff is not anticipated to exceed ten
percent of the proposed budget.
Desired Payment Schedule and Procedures
Invoices will be submitted in accordance with the TENERA Operating Company,
Fees for Professional Services agreement (attached). A total of three invoices will
be submitted for payment. The first invoice will be submitted following completion
of the orientation/initial site visit (Task 1) and first field effort (Task 3) and will not
exceed 20 percent of the total proposed budget. A second invoice will be submitted
following completion of the public review draft EIR (Tasks 2 through 7) and will not
exceed 40 percent of the total proposed budget. A final invoice will be submitted
following completion and submittal of the final EIR (Tasks 8 and 9).
Payment should be made within 30 days of receipt of each invoice. Remittance
should be sent to:
TENERA, L P.
Accounts Receivable
1995 University Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
SL Creek Diversion -EIR Proposal, Rev.1 8 e 0
Proposed Cost Summary
Labor
Project Manager B.Russell 7,775
Technical Advisor C.Hanson 600
Botanist R.Tierney 2,500
Wildlife Biologist L.Hunt 2,%0
Other Direct Costs
Film and photo development costs 48
Travel 120
Water quality instrumentation 80
Photocopy/reprographic costs 300
Total ODC 548
15% G&A� 832
Total Project Cost 14,755
Includes subcontracted labor charge
Hansen/Gularte Creek Diversion Project 9
Proposed Hourly Allocation
Task TENERA Outside Services
B. Russell C.Hanson R.Tierney L Hunt
1 Orientation/Site Visit 8
2 Document Review 8 2 2
3 field Investigations
Fisheries 10
Botanical 24
Wildlife 24
Instream flow 16
Aesthetics 6
4 Interviews 8 4 4
5 Impact Assessment 16 4 4
6 Alternatives Evaluation 8 2 2
7 Draft EIR 24 4 10 10
8 Public Presentations 8
9 Final EIR 18 1 4 4
Total 130 5 50 50
Includes 8 hours travel time for subconsultants(2 trips •4 hours)
Hansen/Gularte Creek Diversion Project 10
`�`TENERQ Effectize Date: January 1,19E9
TENERA Operating Company, L.P.
Fees for Professional Services
Professional Services
Fees for professional services are based on the time charged to the project by professional,technical and admin-
istrative personnel. The fees are computed by multiplying each individual's burdened rate by two and four
tenths(24)for each hour charged to the project by that individual.
Reimbursable Expenses
Other project-related direct costs,including but not limited to the following items,are billed as follows:
1. TFNERA's direct cost and applicable overhead plus 15 percent to cover associated general and ad-
ministrative expense:
a. Postage,freight and other shipping charges.
b. Transportation,lodging and subsistence expenses.
c. Employee relocation expenses.
d. Rental or purchase of materials and equipment.
e. Telephone calls,telegrams and telecopies.
f. Outside administrative sernzces.
g. Subcontracts: 12 percent contract management overhead.
2. TENIERA's standard service center rates:
a. Computer Center.
b. Word Processing Center.
c. Duplicating Center.
3. TENERA's direct cost:
a. State.and local sales,use and license taxes.
Terms and Conditions
Invoices
TEINTERA may submit invoices monthly but is not required to do so. Invoices are payable upon receipt. Interest
of one and one-half(1 3/2)percent per month,but in no event higher than that permitted by law,will be
payable on any amounts not paid within 30 days. Any attorney's fees or other costs incurred in collecting any
delinquent amount shall be paid by the Client. Summary information will be provided on the invoices in accor-
dance with TENERA's standard billing practices. If requested,TENERA will provide additional documentation
at the Client's expense in accordance with the rates specified in TENERA's Fees for Professional Services. Audit
of any charges shall be accomplished at Client's expense by an independent Certified Public Accountancy firm,
and shall be limited to a review of time cards to verify labor charged to the contract and documentation for re-
imbursable expenses.
Effecfize Dale-- June 1987
Insurance
TENERA is protected in the USA,and its possessions and Canada,by Worker's Compensation Insurance
(and/or)employer's liability insurance),and by Public liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage
with a combined limit of$1,000,000 excess coverage and will furnish certificates thereof on request. TENERA's li-
ability to Client and third parties shall be limited to the proceeds which are recovered from any such insurance
and which are attributable to any claimed loss.
If the Client's purchase agreement places greater responsibility upon TENERA or requires further insurance cov-
erage,TENERA may be required to take out additional insurance(if procurable)at the Client's expense;but
TENERA shall not be responsible to Client for property damage from any cause,including fire and explosion,be-
yond the amount and coverage of our insurance. In addition,TENERA shall be named as additional insured in
any client insurance policies and in any hold-harmless agreements against third party suits in agreements be-
tween the client or owner and any contractor who may perform work in connection with any study or report
prepared by TENERA.
Limitation of Liability
TENERA's liability on account of any claim of loss,damage or expense of any kind or character related directly or
indirectly to the performance of its services for Client,shall be limited to$50,000 or the amounts of any applicable
insurance. Said limit shall be an aggregate sum which shall include all payments,whether to Client,Client's
contractors or subcontractors,to TEIN'ERA personnel,or to third persons. This limitation on TENERA's liability
shall apply whatever the nature of any claimed basis of liability including(without limitation)contract,warranty
(express or implied),tort,absolute or strict liability,active or passive negligence,professional errors or omissions,
and any other theory. In addition,TENTERA shall not be liable to Client or third parties for consequential,inci-
dental,special,or reliance damages.
Client agrees to hold TENERA harmless from any claims described herein by client contractors or subcontractors
or third parties of any kind,within the meaning of this provision
Non-Disclosure and Protection of Confidential information
Client and TENTERA acknowledge that either party may disclose both commercial and technical proprietary,trade
secret,or confidential information("confidential information")to the other prior to or subsequent to the engage-
ment of TENIERA's services. Client and TENERA agree that each has an obligation to not disclose to third parties
such confidential information. The terms of this document and all pricing information supplied by TENTERA are
considered confidential by TENERA. Confidential information shall not include information which is(i)gener-
ally available to the public,(ii)in a party's possession prior to the date of disclosure,(iii)received from a third
party who has no obligation of non-disclosure and is lawfully in possession of the information.
Applicable Law
In the event of any dispute with regard to TENERA's services,the applicable law shall be that of the State of
California,excluding its choice of law rules. To the maximum extent permitted by law the parties expressly con-
sent to the personal jurisdiction and venue applicable to TENTERA's corporate headquarters in Berkeley,
California. Should any provision of these Fees for Services be unenforceable,then to the maximum extent per-
mitted by law the remainder shall be enforced.
Approval Authority
TENERA will not be bound by any contract or agreement unless signed by an officer of TENERA,L.P.
2
A TENERA
Effective Dn:c Jcn"?y 1,19E3
TENERA Operating Company, L.P.
Service Center Standard Rates
Data Processing Center
1. I,tiQocomputer ............................................................... S 21.00 per hour
S 185.00 per week*
S 300.00 per month*
2. T`Enicomputer ................................................................. $ 125.00 per hour
+S 2.00 per connect/hour
3. Plotter
"A" Size ............................................................................ S 750 per plot
b" Sze ............... S 15.00 per plot
.............................................................
"C' Size ................................................................ ... S 30.00 per plot
„D" Sze ............................................................................ S 60.00 per plot
Word Processing Center
Ton-dedicated equipment ................................................... S 5.00 per hour
Duplicating Center
Kodak,Xerox, or equivalent ................................................. $ 0.12 per copy
Based on dedicated machine.
C-s-z s
city of San LUIS OBISPO
I,, INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITE LOCATION San Luis ,Obispo Creek upstream from Cuesta Park APPLICATION NO. ER 33-90
PROJECT DESCRIPTION Divert the flow of Hansen and Gularte creeks for municipal water
supply, and provide treatment.
APPLICANT City of San Luis Obispo (Utilities Department - Bill Het Iand)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED X ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY __ Glen Matteson. Associate Planner DATE 11-21-90
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM NT IRECT ION: DATE 12!!10/%
.Fj
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS .
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
II.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ................................................... YES*
B. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NO*
C. LAND USE ....................................................................... NO
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION .............................................. YES, not significant*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES .................................................................. YES, not significant*
F. UTILITIES........................................................................ NO*
G. NOISE LEVELS .................................................................... YES- not significant*
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS&TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS .................... NO
I. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ NO
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .............................................. YES*
K. PLANT LIFE...................................................................... YFS*
L ANIMALLIFE..................................................................... YFS*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICALIHISTORICAL .................:.................................. Nn
N. AESTHETIC ...................................................................... YFS*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCE USE .......................................................... n10
P. CTHER ..........................................................................
III.STAFF RECOMFAFNDATION
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT 58.85
C� -14P
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY 33-90
Reactivate Hansen Creek and Gularte Creek Diversions
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT & SETTING
The City of San Luis Obispo proposes to reactivate diversions from Hansen Creek and
Gularte Creek, to supplement municipal water supplies. These two creeks are
tributaries to upper San Luis Obispo Creek, and are located about three miles northeast
of the city. Their watersheds are on the western slope of the Santa Lucia Mountains,
just east of Highway 101 as it approaches Cuesta pass. The city exercised its right to
divert the flows of these two creeks from 1912 until 1976, when the city decided to
forego the water rather than meet more stringent state treatment requirements.
(Though it may be a controversial issue related to environmental impacts, water rights
are beyond the scope of this study.)
With the proposed project, the city would continuously divert 300 to 500 acre-feet per
year from the streams' natural courses. Project actions include the rehabilitation of
diversion structures, rehabilitation of the pipeline connecting the diversion structures
with Reservoir No. 1, and installation and operation of a treatment plant at Reservoir
No. 1.
The diversion structures are small weirs which divert nearly all dry-season flows from the
stream channels to pipelines, but which allow nearly all storm flows to pass down the
channels. (They are not dams and do not impound a significant amount of water.)
Rehabilitation would include cleaning out the small basins, repair or replacement of
racks to prevent debris from entering the pipes, and repair or replacement of the pipe
connections. Rehabilitation of the pipeline would include replacement of above-ground
sections which leak, consisting of about 20 feet near the silted-in impoundment just
downstream of the confluence of the creeks with San Luis Obispo Creek.
Currently, the diverted water re-enters San Luis Obispo Creek near this old
impoundment (from leaks) and near Reservoir No. 1 (deliberately), which is located
about one-half mile upstream from Cuesta County Park, on the north side of Highway
101. The flow from Hansen and Gularte creeks appears to comprise the total above
ground flow of San Luis Obispo Creek upstream from Cuesta Park during fall 1990.
Under the 1912 agreement, some of the diverted flow is available to the owners of
property which was subject to the agreement. Part of the diverted flow is used for
watering livestock. Some of the diverted flow currently may be used for domestic supply
in dwellings at the mouth of Reservoir Canyon. These uses would not change with the
proposed project
With the proposed project, the diverted water would not be allowed to flow back into
the San Luis Obispo Creek. It would be treated and piped into Reservoir No. 1, from
which it would flow into the city's water distribution system The treatment plant would
consist of a "package" unit. This unit would be about 23 feet long, 11 feet wide, and
G_� Z_
i
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 2
nine feet tall. It would be housed in a metal building similar to existing buildings at the
reservoir site. The unit would provide filtration through sand and granular carbon, and
chlorination, to meet current municipal drinldng water standards. Diverted water
probably would be shunted back to San Luis Obispo Creek at Reservoir No. 1 during
storm flows, when the water would carry excessive sediment.
POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
A Community_plans and goals
The project raises questions of consistency with city policies, since it would divert water
from some desirable uses to meet other desirable uses.
According to the city's general plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, "San
Luis Obispo's water goal is to provide a sufficient quantity of appropriate-quality water
for the needs of the community." The city is anxious to obtain additional water sources,
since normal demand substantially exceeds currently available supply, during years of
below-average rainfall. In response, the city has imposed water rationing, intended to
limit usage to 65 percent of 1987 levels, and a moratorium on projects which will
increase long-term water use.
The water element goes on to say, "In deciding appropriate sources of supplemental
water, the city will evaluate impacts on other users of the water and other environmental
impacts, total and unit costs, reliability, water quality, development time, and quantity
available ...All potential supply alternatives will be explored. City efforts to provide
supplemental water supplies will generally follow the priorities below. While the city
has taken some action on a range of potential sources, it cannot pursue each potential
source with equal effort. The priorities are intended to focus city efforts on those
sources which will: (1) be able to supply water earlier even though the amounts are
relatively modest; (2) require the least capital funding; (3) cause the least environmental
impact, in terms of both the project sites and commitment to growth-inducing resource
expansions; (4) offer the most city control. The order indicates general priorities, not a
strict sequence.
More efficient use of existing supplies (conservation);
More complete use of sources already used by the city;
Development or reactivation of sources in and near the city;
Development of other new sources within San Luis Obispo County;
Development of new sources outside San Luis Obispo County."
The proposed project would fall within the third category of sources. Since the city has
pursued the first two categories to their practical limits, the project would be.consistent
with these priorities.
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 3
However, the project would not be consistent with the policy which says, "The city will
not compete with local agricultural use of groundwater or damage wildlife habitat
through reduced stream flows in obtaining long-term sources of supply" As discussed
below under "Utilities," and "Plant life and animal life," the project has the potential to
significantly harm wildlife habitat without a compensating benefit in additional water
supply.
Possible mitigation for this impact, though not recommended, would be deletion of this
policy from the general plan.
B. Population distribution and ,growth
The project would not have an impact on population growth, since it would not result in
a net increase in water available to the city which could be allocated to development.
Water supply, through the city's general plan and its Water Allocation Regulations,
currently constrains development and city population growth. Additional water supplies
will be needed to enable substantial additional development. At the high end of the
range estimated for this project, 500 acre-feet, the project would superficially increase
water supply by about six percent. However, as explained in following sections, it would
not be appropriate to count this amount toward additional safe yield, since taking water
out of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed at this point would eliminate its availability
at currently used other points. Therefore, the superficial increment would logically not
be added to safe yield for purposes of allowing additional development, as provided in
the Water Allocation Regulations.
Construction and operation of the project will not significantly affect employment in the
city.
D. Transportation and circulation
Traffic impacts will not be significant.
The creek diversions are accessible only from turnouts on the northbound lanes of
Highway 101. The treatment plant site is accessible only from a turnout on the
southbound lanes of Highway 101. Highway 101 is the principle north-south connection
along the central California coast. In this vicinity it carries about 34,000 vehicles per
day; this volume is projected to increase to between 65,000 to 92,000 vehicles as the
build-out capacity of city and county plans.are reached over the next 20 to 30 years
(DKS Associates, Circulation Element update working paper, July 1990). Highway 101
is a divided road, with two travel lanes in each direction. Near the diversion sites, the
northbound lanes ascend at about seven percent. Near the treatment plant, the
southbound lanes descend slightly.
C-S'2`
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 4
Rehabilitating the diversion boxes and installing and operating the treatment plant will
add a few trips. The primary concern is hazard from trucks turning onto and off of the
highway. The number of such movements will be small (for example, the entire package
plant can be delivered in one trip), and larger service vehicles would probably visit the
plant once monthly and the diversion boxes once yearly. Sight distance at the turnout
locations is adequate.
E. Public services
The project will require additional person-hours to monitor and maintain the diversion
and treatment system. It is not known whether these demands will require additional
city personnel. The project will not directly impact other public services.
F. Utilities
There will be no significant impacts on city water or sewer service.
Normal annual water use is about 8,060 acre-feet. This number reflects actual use in
1987, plus water allocated to development projects from July 1987 through September
1990, minus the net savings expected from offset credits (retrofitting). It indicates what
usage would be if rationing was not in effect. Another roughly 59 acre-feet would be
used by projects in the planning review "pipeline," which the council made exempt from
allocation limits when the regulations were amended in spring 1989.
The city considers its safe annual yield, including a conservative estimate of yield from
some of the wells the city developed in 1988, to be about 7,808 acre-feet, or about 97
percent of normal use. However, this amount has been challenged as being too high,
considering experience with the current drought and the need to maintain a live stream
below Salinas Reservoir, with increased downstream usage. (The challenge was part of
an appeal of an environmental determination for a motel project, filed by Donald Smith,
currently a member of the San Luis Obispo County Water Advisory Committee.) Also,
more recently, Clinton Milne of the San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department,
has said that the safe yield estimates for some reservoirs in the county, presumably
Salinas and Nacimiento, may be reduced 20 to 25 percent as a result of experience with
the current drought. Other reservoirs, such as Whale Rock and Lopez, may have
smaller reductions. The city draws water from Salinas and, along with other agencies,
from Whale Rock. The city's Utilities Director also has acknowledged that safe yield
estimates may have to be reduced, but believes it is premature to assess the amount of
reduction at this time.
Due to rationing, annual city water use in the fall of 1990 is about 5,000 acre-feet, with
about one-half of that supplied by groundwater wells, some of which were developed as
temporary, emergency sources.
C-S
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 5
Flow records from 1954 to 1977 indicate an average daily flow of 225 gallons per minute
(363 acre-feet per year) from the combined diversions. In the fall of 1990, in the fourth
year of a drought, both creeks were flowing, but at a combined rate of between 50 and
100 gallons per minute. Withdrawing the water on upper San Luis Obispo Creek is
expected to immediately reduce the amounts available to individual users of downstream
creek water (primarily those who have substituted private withdrawals from the creek for
city water in landscape irrigation) and, in the long term, the amounts available to private
and municipal wells within the San Luis Obispo Creek groundwater basin, which is
recharged in part by percolation from San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries.
The contribution of Hansen and Gularte creeks' flow to groundwater recharge is not
known.
G. Noise levels
Noise impacts will not be significant.
Construction activity will temporarily and insignificantly increase noise at the plant and
along the access route. Operation of the plant will involve relatively small electric pump
motors, and is not expected to create noise audible above ambient noise (largely due to
highway traffic) outside the plant site.
J. Surface water flow & quality: groundwater
K. Plant life
L. Animal life
The project may significantly reduce stream flows which support riparian habitat in
upper San Luis Obispo Creek and may reduce groundwater recharge. Cumulative
impacts of stream and groundwater withdrawals appear to be significant.
San Luis Obispo Creek flows about 17 miles from its headwaters in the Santa Lucia
Mountains east of San Luis Obispo to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. The entire
watershed is about 53,600 acres. The watershed for the portion of creek most directly
affected by the proposed project covers about 6,700 acres above the narrows near
Cuesta Park.
San Luis Obispo Creek is a seasonal stream along much of its upper reaches. Flows are
highly variable throughout the year and from year to year. At a given time, some
sections have surface flow while others, both upstream and downstream, are dry at the
surface, but have subsurface flow through highly porous sand and gravel. This situation
can be observed in the fall of 1990, when there is surface flow at the confluences with
Hansen and Gularte creeks, Cuesta Park is dry, Mission Plaza has surface flow, and the
area near Prado Road is dry.
San Luis Obispo Creek is an important wetland resource within the San Lois Obispo
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 6
area. It is the southernmost California stream with a viable, native steelhead trout
population. Other significant.species dependent on the creek are Pacific pond turtle and
Pacific tree frog.
The Hansen Creek watershed (about 100 acres) and the Gularte Creek watershed
(about 180 acres) are largely oak woodland and oak grassland, with narrow riparian
areas having bay laurel and occasional sycamores and willows. The watersheds are part
of an extensive open space area extending from interior mountain and valley grasslands
through the Los Padres national forest to the eastern edges of the City of San Luis
Obispo. The area has been used for cattle grazing and a few widely separated dwellings.
This diverse habitat includes many edges between wooded areas and areas dominated by
grass, chaparral, and rocky areas with sparse vegetation. Mountain lions, black bear,
and many bird species, including wild turkeys, are among the more obvious animals
which occupy the area. The creeks provide important drinking, feeding, and travel
opportunities for wildlife.
While the watersheds of the subject creeks are small in relation to the entire watershed,
they are important due to the amount and continuity of their flow. The characteristics
which make them desirable water sources for the city also make them desirable sources
for wetland habitat and wildlife. The few places where surface flow continues during a
drought are havens for wildlife that must live in or near water, preserving a few
individuals which can re-populate the creeks system as droughts end.
Water is withdrawn from the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed by the city and by
individuals for domestic, landscape, and agricultural uses. Withdrawals take the form of
pumping directly from creek surface flows, wells close to the channel which probably tap
subsurface flows, and wells into various groundwater subbasins, some of which are
recharged at least in part by San Luis Obispo Creek. No overall assessment of available
water and withdrawals from the upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed has been
performed. Such an assessment was required mitigation for the "Firing Range Well' in
Reservoir Canyon, near the creek just upstream from Cu esta County Park (ER 44-88,
September 1988). Among the unknown quantities which would describe conditions in
this watershed are:
The amount of private stream withdrawals;
The amount of private well withdrawals;
The amount of percolation to the groundwater from San Luis Obispo Creek;
Evaporative losses from the creek;
The amount of inflow from excess irrigation.
The city has commissioned a study of the groundwater basin, hoping to identify
"sustained yield," the amount that can be withdrawn annually without depleting the
source. That study concludes "during the period from 1978 to 1990, Basin 3-9 [under the
city and surrounding area] has not been in a state of sustained overdraft. Long-term
water level records ... indicate that, while the basin water levels do decline significantly
during drought periods, the basin recovers relatively quickly. The current City
C -s .3z
i
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review 7
extractions of approximately 2,000 acre-feet per year are resulting in significant water
level declines which may be considered a 'short term overdraft' but [this result] does not
indicate the long term status of the basin" (Groundwater Basin Evaluation, F.zecutive
Summary, Boyle Engineering, November 1990). The evaluation suggests that continued
city withdrawals at the current rates would result in long-term overdraft unless deliberate
efforts to enhance recharge from stream flows and treated wastewater are effective. The
evaluation does not comment on increased private groundwater withdrawals from the
basin.
The Boyle study did estimate that in Basin 3-9, average annual recharge from rainfall
and irrigation is 3,650 acre-feet. It estimated subsurface outflow to be about 100 acre-
feet, and agricultural, municipal, and industrial extractions to be about 5,800 acre-feet.
Since well levels throughout the basin did not drop substantially during 1978 to 1990, it
concluded that the apparent deficit of 2,250 acre-feet is recharged by inflow from the
Edna Valley groundwater basin and seepage from stream surface flow and from treated
effluent. The overdraft status of the Edna Valley basin was not examined.
In conjunction with the creek diversions, the city is considering making more regular use
of the Firing Range Well, which could withdraw an additional 120 acre-feet per year
from the upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. Cumulative impacts are particularly
a concern with use of this well, since it would apparently draw water from the point
where flow from Hansen and Gularte creeks would otherwise contribute to flow in the
main branch of San Luis Obispo Creek.
State law requires review and concurrence by the Department of Fish and Game for any
substantial diversion of the natural flow of any stream (Fish and Game Code Section
1603). The Department of Fish and Game must determine whether there may be a
substantial adverse impact on existing fish or wildlife, and recommend measures to
protect them. Upon disagreement with the party proposing the diversion, a panel of
arbitrators makes the decision. The city has not sought such a determination, but will
do so before completing environmental review.
N. Aesthetics
Reduced flow in San Luis Obispo Creek will have an impact on sounds and sights along
San Luis Obispo Creek, including Mission Plaza, a creekway park in downtown San Luis
Obispo.
The impact would be significant if the creek went dry. Observed flow at Mission Plaza
in fall 1990 is about the same as the combined flow of the tributaries to be diverted.
This coincidence does not mean that diverting the tributaries would stop flows entirely,
since water may continue to enter from other tributaries and from saturated soils and
fractured rock along the stream course. However, the cumulative impact of public and
private withdrawals from creeks and public and private wells upstream from Mission
Plaza is expected to be reduction or elimination of flow in the few places where surface
flow continues.
C- S-3 .
Creeks Diversion Environmental Review g
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
An environmental impact report (EIR) should be prepared, since there are potentially
significant, adverse impacts, including cumulative impacts. The EIR should focus on the
following impacts, within the upper and middle San Luis Obispo Creek watersheds:
The quality of fish and wildlife habitat;
The net amount of water available for human use;
Aesthetic quality of private and public open space areas along the creek,
including Mission Plaza.
gm3: ER33-90.WP
. i
.,\' tl.'. :1- _ �I��`� �7,:0� CI�'�II•I 1, h ',. .:�•)...; .,. <'Ihc•,�:�,I l'.
1 /l 1Y.� l
•'til v,c' �,�� I , l'' ! :i Z \ `� ''' I U
\
'v `
j ') . I
v.
ti �� i L GUL
e'a "•° \�. ^, ,a . '1,;L1•r<':._`, ,fir 1S(\
Ak
(� r' :I'• ', \��'•� '"moi RrE, � ., t � ... r/i ,o
I.S. rr). ., '1.-
Jacks1 f�
., ... 1.
mark it I I BIaCk
i
` :.. '•y. �l:� .� !l-I_,! —..., , �[ ... Butte...
t' "pGP[1RA1V,II (
T
ne
'!� ni.u,��:.,.,,,•n: i I' i I �_ jam. . 7 �.^.
t ' Ph I ip'g in `/ ' 20
�r2 ::: EX►STINU dee yimpie
ft o4
He man .;.�Ir
rw
••I t. .. ' I I �/ I` / " ,� `-- ----`----- 1T / ter✓ ,
/ v _ f C"..q Gnnn -® ` ,Mnn y:'.� �.� -�•�'�-�-i ( r'
`1 .I C..,.P... a ..i. ,.nr' 1 .•y %,�
f
owe , y
KINT Lq) ;OB]SFO (�i�
ON
n •S.q1 •�'d'•I., i. - �v.o.a,.4' I is "'�' ✓6`�...: �. ` \ ' `:
1 r �.� l '�•_�7\ 1,
Mill \:.• -A.'Jr• ._._... i .I •' / _ :• "r.�. .Fl�-
l l;.tN w,. `. \•... ' ! !I ,31_ ~jt—` , ` 321
\ +• .._rihi,\\:� �,i.• .. „ I __-,;ice•,•..
47.-� p -1 a' w e• :��i i' V ] 'I t gyro- /i 1 .•'j', 1' ... N .I�. �.: