The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09/03/1991, 5 - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR HANSEN AND GULARTE CREEKS DIVERSION I��N��Il�lylllll��ll �lllllll � i MEETING DATE: U c� o san lug s osi spo 9 - 3 -Cl� COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ATE"' NUMBER: FROM: Arnold B. JoGnoarsy,► Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Glen Matteson. Associate Planner SUBJECT: Environmental review for Hansen and Gularte creeks diversion CAO RECOMMENDATION Consider the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , comments, and responses, and determine whether or not to proceed with additional studies and permit applications. DISCUSSION In November 1990, the City Council directed staff to proceed quickly with work on reactivating diversions from Hansen Creek and Gularte Creek, two small, spring-fed streams near Cuesta Grade, to supplement city water supplies. In February 1991, the council approved an agreement and work scope with Tenera Environmental Services to -prepare an EIR focused on impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, the net amount of water available for human use, and aesthetic impacts, within the middle and upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The EIR was published June 7, and the public comment period under state guidelines closed July 26. Before approving the project, the council must certify that the EIR is adequate. If the council wants to approve the project even though the EIR says there will be significant, adverse impacts, it must find that there are "overriding considerations. " Any agency which is empowered to approve or deny the project, such as the State Water Resource Control Board, will consider the EIR before acting. The city has received several comments; the consultant has responded to the relevant issues (attached) . In general, the comments agree that the EIR adequately describes the impacts expected from the proposed project. However, several people, including the Department of Fish and Game's regional manager and Caltrans' District 5 review coordinator, have said that the project should not be approved as proposed. Further, they oppose carrying out the reduced-diversions alternative recommended in the EIR, at least until further studies demonstrate the recommended diversion limits will adequately protect fish and wildlife habitat. The additional studies would require additional funds and several months to several years to complete, depending on rainfall. Even if the additional studies are done, key state agencies may oppose the reduced diversions since San Luis Obispo Creek is "fully appropriated. " I.f water from a drainage area is fully lcity of san Lacs OBlspo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT appropriated, none is available for further diversions. Also, it appears that the city has lost its right to the water, since it did not use the diverted water for at least five years. The diversion would be a small but important source of water for the city. San Luis Obispo Creek, which could be harmed by the diversion, is a valuable wildlife and aesthetic resource. Before proceeding further or formally stopping work on this project, staff is requesting council direction. i FISCAL IMPACTS The EIR's author has provided a cost estimate of $24,495 to complete the "Instream Flow Incremental Methodology" study recommended by the Department of Fish and Game. This money would come from water enterprise funds, if authorized by the council. j i I CONCURRENCES i The Utilities Department, after reviewing the draft EIR, evaluating the recommended reduced-diversions alternative, and consulting with a water-rights attorney, concludes: - The reduction in yield would increase the unit cost of water from this source; - More studies would be needed before implementing a project; - The city has probably lost the right to this water. I jConsidering these points, utilities staff recommends that the council abandon the project and delete it from the list of alternative water supply projects. ALTERNATIVES The alternative of certifying the EIR now and carrying out the proposed project or alternative project, without further study, does not appear to be feasible. The council may: i 1. Decide not to reactivate the creek diversion. I i 2 . Direct staff to proceed with additional studies which may persuade state agencies that reduced diversions would be acceptable. 3 . Continue action. n►��i��lllililll°1i IIII'Il � c� Of san Luis oBispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT RECOMMENDATION Consider the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , comments, and responses, and determine whether or not to proceed with additional studies and permit applications. j DISTRIBUTED PREVIOUSLY Draft EIR (contact staff for another copy) ATTACHMENTS Comments received Responses from EIR author gmD: HGEIRCC.WP I I S- 3 ��n►►►►►�►n�►►a►i►IIIII! I�IIII@��►► ��►�iI I city osAn tuis omspo 955 Morro Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 June 12, 3.991 MEMORANDUM TO: Glen Matteson, Community Development Director FROM: David F. Romero, Public Works Director d0� SUBJECT: EIR for Hansen and Gularte Creeks The City has continuously, since 1910 to the present, collected water from Hansen and Gularte creeks and transported this water in a pipeline system to the reservoir. In 1976, rather than placing this water in the reservoir, we diverted the water back to San Luis Obispo Creek, using it for another municipal purpose, that of creating a viable stream through the community. The City expended considerable money approximately 10 years ago to relocate a portion of this pipeline as Caltrans widened 101. we have also continuously maintained the headworks and the spring box. There has never been a time when the City did not consider this as part of the municipal supply and put it to some beneficial City use. The consultant, on Pages 5 & 6, sets a criteria as to when the City would be allowed to divert this supply into the municipal water system, that is when the volume in the main portion of San Luis Obispo Creek at the gauging station on Reservoir Canyon Road is less than the volume being diverted into the system. The consultant's recommendation is that the City would then cease diverting Hansen and Gularte creeks to the reservoir, but would Z divert this water back to the creek. This has the effect of doubling the creek flow at that time. This seems to me to be arbitrary, without any reasonable basis in fact. It would seem much more reasonable that when the volume in San Luis Obispo Creek at the gauging station and the volume diverted to the municipal supply are equal, we would gradually divert part s- � EIR Page Two of the municipal supply back to the creek, thus maintaining the creek flow at a constant level. When San Luis Obispo Creek dries up at the gauging station, all of the creek flow below the rifle range would be diverted water. A reverse process would be used in the fall. I believe this would allow the City several additional weeks or months of partial use of the Hansen and Gularte supply and would still protect downstream uses. From the point that the creeks are diverted into the City pipelines, until the water is discharged into the creek leading 3 to San Luis Obispo Creek near the rifle range, there is no loss due to percolation or evaporation. Using this amount of flow creates a generous interpretation and provides a greater flow through the city. c: John Dunn Gary Henderson eir/dfr#29 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY rcnorc �••�---•• •• Gob,„or DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ')ST OFFICE BOX 47 JUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 (707) 9445500 July 15 , 1991 Mr. Glen Matteson, City Planner City of San Luis Obispo Post Office Box 8100 C"y of 19911, San Luis Obispo, California 93401-8100 Dear Mr. Matteson: Draft Environmental Impact Report for Hansen and Gularte Creeks Diversion, City of San Luis Obispo, SCH #91061029 Department of Fish and Game personnel have reviewed the subject Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) regarding diversion of Hansen and Gularte creeks, tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo County. The City had diverted these two creeks prior to 1914 and thus had established pre-1914 rights to the water. However, in the mid-seventies, because of new water treatment requirements, diversion ceased. The City is now considering reactivation of this water for municipal use. The DEIR adequately represents the potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources of the proposed diversions. Drought conditions have made it apparent that during periods of low flow much of upper San Luis Obispo Creek is supported by inflows from Hansen and Gularte creeks. As pointed out in the document, it is expected that reactivation of the diversions will significantly impact steelhead rearing habitat, red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle habitat, as well as sensitive wetland areas. The document indicates that, though these diversions occurred from the early 1910's through 1976 with no apparent long-term impact, the cumulative impacts resulting from the diversions are of concern. We want to stress this point. Water diversion from this drainage has increased significantly over the years. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has, in fact, 4 recently declared San Luis Obispo Creek fully appropriated, meaning that based on their records they believe there is no additional water in the drainage available for appropriative diversion. A cumulative impact which was not c� specifically addressed in the document is the proposed reclamation of wastewater presently discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. With rediversion of the subject creeks and reclamation of this wastewater, impacts to San Luis Obispo Creek could be extreme. Since 1976, both the red-legged frog and the southwestern pond turtle have declined dramatically in numbers statewide to the point where both are candidates for listing as federally endangered species and are designated as Species of Special Concern by the Department. Much of their decline, particularly south of this county, has been as a-result of water diversion and habitat degradation. It is unknown to what extent the previous years of J �� Mr. Glen Matteson July 15, 1991 Page Two diversion impacted their range in the upper San Luis Obispo drainage, but it is certain that during this most recent drought, the inflows from the two tributary streams have been critical for their survival. Steelhead trout have been similarly affected statewide by water diversion, being virtually eliminated south of this county. State policy requires that the Department oppose projects which result in negative impacts to steelhead populations or habitats. It is well documented that in San Luis Obispo Creek, the upper reaches, which will be directly impacted by this project, provide some of the most important steelhead nursery habitat in the drainage. The Department must oppose this project if all the flow from the dp diversion works is proposed for reactivation. We believe the environmental costs in terms of habitat loss are far too high relative to water supply ` benefits. Environmental conditions have changed significantly since 1976, with increasing diversion of water and decreasing habitat available for sensitive species. The only project alternatives which are remotely feasible from our perspective are those which either reduce or eliminate diversion during low-flow periods. As part of the mitigation strategy for the alternative which includes a low-flow bypass, the document recommends that diversion volumes be determined in one of two ways. In the first, diversion would take place only when diversion volume is less than the volume of water flowing in upper San Luis Obispo Creek. This may indeed provide sufficient water to adequately mitigate for impacts and is certainly an improvement over a project which does not provide for mitigation during low flows. However, it is not possible to evaluate the flow needs of the creek from the available data and whether or not this strategy provides adequate mitigation. The Department recommends the second method of determining diversion volumes, which requires that more extensive flow studies be conducted to define specific bypass flows. In our comments on the Notice of Preparation, we recommended that the City conduct an Instream Flow Incremental Methodology study to determine necessary bypass flows. The City did not provide the necessary time frame for that study to be.conducted as part of the DEIR process. If the City decides to pursue this project with bypass conditions, then flow study information must be available so that appropriate mitigation can be developed prior to certification of the final EIR or issuance of any permit. Also, adequate flow studies will most likely be a part of the environmental review requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board. In the Initial Study, the City identified water rights issues as "beyond the scope of this study." We disagreed with this statement in our response to b the Notice of Preparation and still believe that it is an appropriate and necessary topic to address in the CEQA process for this, project. Failure to do so has created an obvious deficiency in the DEIR. San Luis Obispo Creek has been declared fully appropriated by the SWRCB, and the City has allowed J ' 7 Mr.. Glen Matteson July 15, 1991 Page Three 8 its pre-1914 rights to lapse through 15 years of non-use. The City may, (gyp) therefore, have to appropriate this water as though it were a new project. The State Water Resources Control Board is, therefore, a Responsible Agency and must have sufficient information available in the EIR to determine whether and how to approve the project. If this information is not available, a supplemental EIR may be required. This project has been viewed by the City as a short-term water supply option with other, higher yielding projects considered for water supply in the long term, such as the State Water Project or Lake Nacimiento diversion. We would caution the City, however, that this project is not necessarily short term, as a number of critical issues must be resolved before water would be available. Considering our concerns and the stream system's fully 9 appropriated status, the water rights process is certain to be a lengthy one. We would protest any water rights application for this project, and resolution of our protest would require adequate data from flow studies to ensure mitigation of impacts. In conclusion, although the DEIR adequately describes impacts of the project, we believe that insufficient information is available to adequately identify appropriate mitigation measures for the proposed diversion. If the City decides to proceed with this project, ' we believe that a detailed mitigation plan, based on adequate flow study data, must be incorporated into 1c the EIR and approved by our Department prior to certification of the final document. Furthermore, the City must recognize that the SWRCB is a Responsible Agency in this process, and meeting their needs as such is a critical part of the review process. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Ms. Karen Worcester, Fishery Biologist, (805) 772-4122, or Mr. Carl Wilcox, Associate Wildlife Biologist, (707) 944-5525. You may also reach either by writing to Post Office Box 47, Yountville, California 94599. Sincerely, Brian Hunter Regional Manager Region 3 cc: Mr. Steve Herrera, SWRCB S-St = JUL 1919: 1�1-rri�� \J r clan LUIS � _ _ w �,,` III„ ► FISH FOR 't P.O. BOX 277 ■ AVILA BEACH, CA 93424 `� EVERYONE A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION _July 16, 1991 Mr. Glenn Matteson Associate Planner Community Development Department P.U. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100 Re: Comments on draft EIR: Hansen and Gularte Creeks Diversion Project. Dear Mr. Matteson, Thank you for providing me with a copy of the draft EIR for proposed diversions. CC5E is apposed to the diversion of important spring fed tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek We agree with the EIR that such action could leave San Luis Obispo Creek without enough water to sustain the multitudes of life it supports. The result would be devastating for thousands of fish, including a threatened strain of steelhead trout, hundreds of plant species, birds and other animals. T Additionally, it appears that the City has lost ago,-cal-iativeri47&s to diverting water from 'Z1 Hansen and Gularte Creeks. The water has not been diverted since 1976 which should have resulted in a loss of the right to divert in 1981. 1 spoke with the Water Resources Control Board 13I in Sacramento and they agree that the right to this water has been lost. I look forward to following the City's progress on the proposed diversion as our organization does not agree with this concept. Please keep me informed as your time allows. Additionally, if I can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to call. Sincerel aul Cleveland Project Manager 805/489-6456 cc. Karen Worcester, Ray Belknap. S-9 STATE OF CAUFORNW—BUSINESS, TRANSPOF ON AND HOUSING AGENCY PETE WILSON, Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O. BOX 8114 PA kJ LUIS OBISPO, CA 934038114 PHONE: (805) 549.1111 ' (805) 5493259 JUL July 19, 1991 2 2199. ^�Yof UnL°'Soos' 5-SIA-101-32/34 Hansen & Gularte Creek Diversion Project DEIR SCH# 91061029 Mr. Glen Matteson City of Sar. Luis Obispo Community Development P. O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-8100 Dear Mr. Matteson Caltrans District 5 staff has reviewed the above-referenced document. The following comments were generated as a result of the review: a. The State Water Resources Control Board printout states 14 that San Luis Creek is fully appropriated. If this is the case, any diversion would affect water flow within the State Right-of-way, thereby impacting sensitive fish and riparian habitat that Caltrans is responsible for maintaining. b. With the diversion of water, the mitigation plan has not 15 shown that the impacts associated with this project will not affect the wetlands. The remaining water flowing down stream may not sustain these resources at an acceptable level. C. Since this document does not adequately address our IL concerns, it should not be certified until the environmental impact report addresses the cumulative impacts on biological resources from the proposed diversion project and removal of waste water effluent from San Luis Obispo Creek. The r;r analysis should include in steam flow measurements of San 1 Luis Obispo Creek. Mr. Glen Matteson July 19, 1991 Page 2 Please send us a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Report when it is available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. If you have any questions, please contact me at (805) 549-3683 . Sincerely, 7'h . Wa Schnell District 5 Intergovernmental Review Coordinator Mr. Glen Matteson, Associate P. anner Phil Ashley Community Development `" 1586 La Cita Court City of San Luis ObispoJ1991 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 u` 2 4 P.O. Box 5100 756-2505 (work) San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 COOfSmLuis Obs . July 23, 1991 Subject: My comments on the Draft EIR for the Hansen and Gularte Creek Diversion Project. I have lived in San Luis Obispo for 20 years--4 years as a biology student at Cal Poly in the late 1960's and the past 16 years as a biologist for Cal Poly. In between this time I ob- tained an M.S. degree in freshwater fish biology at Humboldt State University and worked for California Department of Fish and Game and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In my 20 years as a local field biologist I have become familiar with the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage. My senior project at Cal Poly delt with steelhead and speckled dace of Stenner Creek and I have since made numerous biological observations in the riparian areas associated with this proposed water diversion project. On the other hand, I have not made a specific site visit related to this project because I have not had time. However, this is one of the best relatively short EIR's I have read, and I feel comfortable over- all with the EIR's project assessment (this does not mean that I will not soon try to make a site visit ) . The conclusion of the EIR is clear. The significant, ur_mi- tigable biological impacts indicate that either ( 1 ) there should be no project or ( 2 ) considerable more study needs to be done on surface flows and groundwater relationships and sensitive species before the project is again considered. The EIR also mases it clear that incurring the costs of these further studies does not guarantee a project, due to adverse biological impacts. And . finally the EIR raises the question (without stating it ) would the costs of the biological and water studies be practicle consi- dering the small amount of water this project would supply of the City's total needs--about 5 %. Despite the overall adequacy of the EIR there are a few discrepancies I will address. Primarily these discrepancies relate to the adverse effects the water diversions alone have had, or will have, on riparian vegetation. Page 49, paragraph 1 : This paragraph states "The fact that diversions occurred from the early 1910 "s through 1976 with no obvious impact to the riparian corridor and dependent biological resources suggests that surface flows and the riparian community in the upper watershed are sustained by other water sources ( i.e. , from springs, seeps, and tributaries) besides those flows 18 occurring above the point of diversion on Hansen and Gularte Creeks,. " Other than the continued existence of the steelhead population, the EIR gives no evidence that I can find to support this conclusion. Have baseline quantitative and qualitative, riparian plant and animal studies been done prior to 1910, between 1910 and 1976, and since 1976 to, make comparisons that would 1 s-�z support this no-adverse-effect conclusion? These steelhead studies were not designed to study the overall riparian ecosystem and therefore should not lead to a conclusion riparian habitat was not effected by the water diversions from 1910 to 1976. Nor do these more recent steelhead studies give us any information on the comparitive condition of the steelhead population or any other riparian plant or animal species prior to 1910 when the tg water diversions began. So how do we know there was no riparian degradation after 1910? Page 52 paragraph 2• This paragraph states "Although it can be demonstrated that the Hansen and Gularte Creek diversions occurred from the early 1910"s through 1976 with no apparent long term impact to the riparian corridor and dependent biological resources, . . . . " . See my previous comment. Again, other than the questionable EIR conclusion drawn from steelhead studies (that did not study the overail . riparian system) , where is the evidence to support the lack of an adverse impact to the riparian community resulting from the water diversion from 1910 to 19'6? Care should be taken in making conclusions about an entire ecosystem ( riparian) based on studies of a single •indicator" species ( steelhead) . Page 34 raragraph 4 : Regarding the Hansen Creek diversion this paragraph states "Below the diversion point, the habitat is drier and more exposed, with coastal sage scrub and grassland elements infringing to the edge of the streambed. it is not known whether the habitat shift is human-induced ( i. e . , attributable to reduced flows caused b3' the diversions ) or natural ( caused by st=-eF• terrain and changing microclimates ) . Here the EIR raises the same question for Hansen Creek that I have raised for San Luis Obispo Creek in my previous two comments. That question is. how do we know whether or net the Fast water diversions `:a%re ad`'ers•ely effected the riparian community below the diversions? How do we know what the riparian community below Site #4 along :man Luis Obispo Creek would be like today if we had not diverted this water from 1910 to 1976. Without Fre-1910 and post-1976 riparian information to compare to, it is probably presumptuous to conclude that other. sources of water besides Hansen and Gularte Creeks adequately maintained the riparian vegetation in San Luis Obispo Creek from 1910 to 1576. Contrarily, now that I have read the EIR and understand what has occurred to flows in San Luis , 1 will suggest oFFosit•--diversio:, of Obispo Creek since 1910 these flows likely has adversely effected riparian vegetation in the project area. I have wondered in the past why riparian vegetation in places along San Luis Obispo Creek from Site #3 t0 downstream to Site #4 is relatively sparse . The diversions of Gularte and Hansen Creeks may be a partial or complete explanation. Previous to reading the EIR, I did not know that these streams have been prevented from entering San Luis Obispo Creek above Site #4 since .1910. Now that I have this knowledge , I am concerned about the historical biological damage that has likely occurred to these streams and the riparian ecosystem in return for so little City water. It is important, that in assessing this project, as Fart of 2 so:-13 the "no project" alternative, the City consider returning these Zi diverted flows to Hansen and Gularte Creeks. The City could return all of these diversions to Hansen and Gularte Creeks, except the amount that upstream water users have a historical legal right to. Page 40, last paragraph: This paragraph states ''Impacts are expected to be insignificant for the remaining 9 species due to their habitat requirements and present distribution. " This statement conflicts with Table 4 on pages 42 and 43 regarding accipiter hawks. Table 4 indicates the adverse impact on Cooper' s and sharp-shinned hawks could be "High if a loss of riparian habitat were to occur as a result of the diversion. " This last quote also conflicts with the E;1R quotes on Page 49, paragraph 1 and Page 52, paragraph 2, which I have previously commented on. It is reasonable to suggest, as does Table 4, that in the absence of no more evidence than exists in the steelhead studies, ripa- rian vegetation could, over time, be diminished by water diver- 2Z- Bions to the point of adversely effecting these two species of woodland hawks. Page 51 , paragraph 2: This papragraph states ''Sensitive species in the project area which may be impacted, if the riparian corridor was threatened with degradation, include the Cooper ' s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk. " This statement supports what the EIR says in Table 4 about the possibility of riparian habitat being diminished by water diversions. This statement also contradicts, as does Table 4 (which I discussed in the immediately preceeding comment ) , the EIR where it elsehwere states (Page 49, paragraph 1 and Page 52. paragraph 2, which I have already commented on) without adequate. evidence, that pa=t diversions have not historically adversely effected ti.e downstream riparian community. Paae 52, 5. 5 Cumulative impacts: 1 agree it is very im or J F tan r. to assess the cumulative adverse impacts of this project combined with other water mining projects and other riparian degrading activities. For this reason the E1R should address the cumula- tive adverse impacts this water diversion project will have Z3 combined with the City's new proposal to divert sewer effluent from San Luis Obispo Creek for agricultural use. This effluent will soon be more highly purified by an improved sewer plant . We are spending millions of dollars to improve the effluent water quality so it will be legally suitable for releasing into the creek ecosystem. But before this can even happen, the City is targeting this ecologically important water (without any in-pi-c. from a staff biologist, an employee the City critically needs and that is long overdue ) for other uses. Please see the attached Telegram Tribune article where a City official indicates that this treated effluent will benefit the creek wildlife and then contradictorily indicates that the effluent will be diverted from the creek ecosystem. So the EIR should address the cumulative effects of the proposed diversions of Gularte and Hansen Creeks above town and the newly proposed diversion of the purified sewage effluent below town. 3 Attachment 1 , page 3, paragraph 1 : This paragraph has an excerpt from the City's General Plan that states "The city will not. . .dam- age wildlife habitat through reduced stream flows in obtaining long-term sources of supply. " The paragraph then states " . . . the project has the potential to significantly harm wildlife habitat without a compensating benefit in additional water supply. " But the next sentence states "Possible mitigation for this impact, though not recommended, would be deletion of this policy from the general plan. " The last quote falls into the should-not-have- been-said category. It creates needless conflict. The statement itself admits "though not recommended" , so why was it brought up? Are we to assume that if sensitive biological resources somehow interfere with the nonbiological goals of a project, we simply do away with environmental regulations to overcome that inter- ference? Eliminating environmentally protective regulations is not mitigation contrary to what this statement in the Initial. Environmental Study suggests. Mitigation as defined by CEQA is lessening the adverse impacts of a project. How is eliminating an environmentally protective policy in the General Plan going to lessen (mitigate ) the adverse environmental impacts of this project? Finally, the EIR cakes it clear that the City has little or no scientific information on several biologically sensitive species that may be in the City li.mits or within the water diversion pro- ject area. Some of these sensitive species are the southwestern pond turtle, the red-legged frog, the Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks, ringtail , and Chorro Creek bog thistle. in the Fast Ci--y representatives have stated that the City can do without a staff biologist. Yet the City has dozens of small to large projeot.Z- every year ( these are the City 's own projects and not dozens o other projects proposed by citizens that a so require critic_ei biological input from the onset and not later) that require biological information beyond the scope of immediately urgen EIR's and other reports. Only a City staff biologist would have the long-term vested interest and expertise to perform studies that would stockpile biological information that would then be Z5 readily available to use in project reports. There is no reason for a city the size of ours, with its extensive creek and moun- tain resources, not to have a staff biologist. It is unwise. discriminatory, and unfair to give project goals other than biological goals advantages because disciplines promoting those other goals are represented by staff (public_ works. engineering, parks and recreation, planning and building, etc . ) early in project formulation and biology is not. The input of a City staff biologist could have easily avoided the significant environmental destruction that has just occurred on the sensitive serpentine habitat of Cheapskate Hill resulting from the City's installation of a major water line and road, without biological analysis ! Please hire a biologist to help balance the biological versus development perspective of a city with over 300 employees. Though I have discussed a few faults with the EIR, it is overall a good report. But it does need to ( 1 ) resolve the conflicting statements regarding the effect diversions could have had historically, and could have in the future, on the riparian 4 s-�s community and (2) discuss the cumulative adverse impacts of diverting Gularte and Hansen Creeks and diverting the purified sewage effluent. My strongest recommendation is that the City abandon this water diversion project. It was an ill-advised project of yester-year when environmental considerations were often ignored. It is not a suitable project for this era. The EIR indicates that the small amount of water that will be obtained from this diversion project (about 5% of the City's needs) is not worth the ecological sacrifices that will occur. And beyond my recommendation of no project, I also recommend that the City return the riparian system to its pre-1910 situation 2� by returning natural flows to Gularte and Hansen Creeks at the point of historic diversions. This could improve or create more steelhead spawning and nursery habitat in the upper reaches of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please phone or write me. Sincerely, 5 5 -/6 a�. a m doo, 0`oa in c D Gamma z 4• �� • yA °' °° . 7S u!a-w 1 5�• -is a. aes $ ejan5gA 44noS .. Y m )sails �D o ec CZ J 3 ` A� h (n 3 u ci" v . ? z 3 i r w p t y a°. F = 3� '.' •fl' r- c U c 3 3 t CJ Lo U e=.i.fl �+ pro �- -= c z wG tE c'- 'c MC ° r e _c-�'ecr'� w y w= p G n u o E'0 t . •� O r p � �.= tw. p V 2 V p 7 W L'O. p E Gr = w� OL'7 T U W _w ucc p m .. v 3 O ` -wr 'V' Va' ^�= eo �3� 3� w oEc � w e4 to � Ec� ° " L` hro ° p U L` 0 S L 7 .U.- O C- h�'p - w T. 9 m R p L O O- N L.n V =� Y'�� w r L ci L C p L C13C •E L r.= r d C.� C f] U C� C. O w= As��fm m a o °D`0c cu c�u o< <cu o e` O o� u 3 a�•� `.�R r ;' y ^s em c �a �' w �_�� `� U p h U T-fR'O w-.J p p p�T� L ° p w A w U ° r ` C.H •w t.. E O j_ CJ w 3 L O r O L ^ O--.r L t U�d m L LO E M 7 w t L... G p` a. U = L.0 L r w T L °.0 � O L V, 7 0 61. E 0 2 = Lo 7 w ° U T C DOL.. O O w - U p ��- :n wZE�� = c�� = y =CE Lp.. �� c �� _.r m ro.Dc �� W 0 ^ W tIN Q V ^ c0 U r r7 O r, v w L G'- P'O O E•O'•3J vJ tr.- ewwr. c � � Q CL) 1 u — L iC=F o os mooEA cau �- °f" ° V E-` Q4 . EUw ow ME a 0=rcar� dE-0 0cj nocj •mac S mm WW pe3w cd y m app 4- Co 0 _ o - , mr � p,mo p o C = m � ° m �-° w . $ L u cc U l p • p O m p m �• > G CJ w •0 = p u C p V O O C w � � � c0 w p S�Ya L�� c ms a� c°r 67 pcly cp eopL. p � -� � p ° m C = 3 Lm Eact c nee O m" aEiCcpw r3w<' a�� 3 EE-� au ` � °1aac yC �a Cr C > o z-.� p T E cc a, O d'O 'G.0 tT0 C U W 07 O W. U W 2 .� c `p'• m- Gp a p� �'� aLi ate ;: L .°. c c m u2� E o °�o `0 0 +J O O G m c0 r�: E,.o p= t Z 6 p O.O= p p r J p `pw -= w- u u " cz.0 aiu °ty ? a3im= v ccd� occ! E9 _r, 00 A) w ==--W = = (D = - y O=y tw..=:a = w d E T�' m E m- ° ' w c0 >L/ /�, a Lmae=n=�s. Qs " �u a: -:5 W CM% °."nom aE � � cc[ h °i 3e T� d d p p O..i -' V d p G F p 01-_ N CO O E•� 'C T pCc% opo y o rV' L. 2E" cu IG c y u w �, o=y �' oS e _ o `.3� Q. o� crp a3i � m 3 06 O7 C p 7.� L d Z ..:h N.� A -L,�. w C m 6•-i+ y.�.J 00 00 7 w v w = m p - E m U O C m L p C7 p L0- wl w w o o L u > m s — Dp a`°. mvaa .°. C37se ami = " aw...'.' prw.� cQa�iw'm•-JJ a3i a3ia m p m"r X o�A 0 3 �< `D `.4� d p6 c=0-a EDW pL o u�' .CI WE o w w H= c�� •5.Oa 5. - m.u� E m� rJ' dvwi� C 3 G 1 Responses to comments on the Hansen and Gularte Creek DEIR This summary report has been prepared to address comments pertaining to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Hansen and Gularte Creek diversion project. The DEIR was dated and submitted to the San Luis Obispo Community Development Department June 3, 1991. By the end of the 45 day period for public review, a total of five letters (attached) had been received by the city from the following individualsi Name Affiliation David Romero City of San Luis Obispo,Public Works Director Brian Hunter California Department of Fish and Game,Regional Manager Paul Cleveland Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Inc.,Project Manager Wayne Schnell CA Department of Transportation,Intergovernmental Review Coordinator Phil Ashley Concerned Citizen Comments to the DEIR indicated that, in general, the biological impact assessment was adequately presented. Of the five letters submitted, four expressed opposition to the project, particularly with respect to year-round diversions. The three principal technical issues raised in the attached letters related to: 1) legal entitlement to the diverted water; 2) the need for additional instream flow studies (IMM); and 3) cumulative impacts in light of future water reclamation activities at the city wastewater treatment facility once the sewer plant upgrade (to tertiary treatment) is complete. These three issues are discussed below. Other DEIR comments which are presented in the attached letters are then clearly referenced and discussed in further detail. Water Rights In its initial study, the city indicated that the water rights issue was beyond the scope of the project and the DEIR was prepared accordingly. The question of legal entitlement was perceived as a separate and distinct issue from the environmental impact assessment. Several individuals questioned this omission (CDFG: # 4, 8, 9; CCSE: # 12, 13; and Cal Trans: # 14). Legal questions pertaining to the water rights, given the nature of entitlement (pre-1914) and the fact that the city maintained its diversion facilities (Romero # 1), suggest that the issue will not be easily resolved. Although the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has declared San Luis Obispo Creek to be fully appropriated, it is not clear to what extent this determination considers historical Hansen and Gularte creek diversions. It was therefore determined by city staff that lengthy and complex legal issues associated with the diversion should not encumber the DEIR process. The DEIR was therefore prepared to provide useful information upon which the SWRCB could base its water rights decision. Whether the legal question should have been resolved prior to drafting the EIR was a judgement call and is irrelevant to the adequacy of the document. Cumulative Impacts In response to comments received from CDFG (# 5, 7, 10), Cal Tans (# 16), and Mr. Phil Ashley (# 23), it is appropriate to place additional emphasis in Section 5.5 (Cumulative Impacts) of the final EIR on potential impacts resulting from future city water reclamation activities. The DEIR adequately addresses potential impacts to wetland species of concern resulting from reduced streamflow and significant impacts were identified for many of these species. Section 5.5 should be revised to emphasize the fact that cumulative impacts will occur to downstream riparian habitat and dependent biological resources as a result of future city water reclamation activities. Instream Flow Studies CDFG believes that year-round diversions should not be implemented without conducting instream flow studies (Instream Flow Incremental Methodology, IFIM) in the watershed. CDFG clearly indicates that results of IFIM studies should be used to develop a detailed mitigation plan in the EIR. Their opinion has been expressed in responses to both the Notice of Preparation and the DEIR (CDFG # 7 and 10). A recommendation to conduct additional instream flow studies has also been expressed by Cal Trans (# 17). Prior to awarding the contract for consulting services, a determination was made by the city not to include these IFIM studies as part of its DEIR. Consequently, it was necessary for consultants to take a conservative approach in assessing impacts and proposing mitigation strategies. Project consultants agree with CDFG that additional stream flow information (from IFIM) would be very helpful in evaluating project impacts and recommending bypass flows, however it should be noted that there are limitations to these studies. IFIM studies are designed specifically to help ensure protection of fishery resources within a watershed. Results from IFIM do not necessarily propose flow standards which are optimal for many other wetland species (such as the western pond turtle and California red legged frog), nor do they address flow requirments for riparian vegetation. In addition, IFIM results can vary with groundwater and other hydrological conditions in a watershed. On the basis of these IFIM shortcomings and the fact that diversions have occurred historically, project consultants proposed in the DEIR (and CDFG acknowledges) that biological resources may in fact be adequately protected without IFIM studies if a schedule of reduced appropriations during low flow periods is followed. It is the opinion of project consultants that the DEIR does in fact present a reasonable and conservative approach for recommending low flow bypasses. This is, in part, based on the recommendation set forth in the DEIR to develop and implement a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (which includes baseline and annual species abundance and distribution surveys to help ensure these sensitive species are adequately protected). As stated in the DEIR, it would be necessary for CDFG to endorse this plan prior to reactivating the diversion. Despite the DEIR recommendation, CDFG has made it clear that the Department wishes to see the IFIM incorporated into the project prior to making its final determination on the project. The IFIM studies which would be required can be extremely labor intensive. In addition, IFIM results may not necessarily result in additional project yield. Studies include the evaluation of surface flow conditions (depth and velocity measurements, and stream bed profiling), and in addition include detailed habitat characterizations. All data collected subsequently is used in computerized hydrologic and habitat simulation models to calculate "Weighted Useable Area" for specific species and lifestages of fish. The studies require field surveys under at least three flow regimes (low, average, and high runoff conditions). Runoff conditions in the watershed may not permit the required surveys to be conducted during one year of rainfall (as evidenced in recent years). An estimated summary of the likely cost which might be expected to conduct the necessary studies has been attached. Please note that this is only an estimate and many factors (number of permanent transects and streamflow conditions in the watershed, for example) can play a role in the final work scope and project cost. It is recommended that any IFIM studies which may be conducted for this project include planning involvement by representatives from CDFG and SWRCB. Other issues of concern Letter #1: Mr. David Romero Reference # 2: Mr. Romero makes an important observation regarding the timing of flow bypass and the "doubling" effect it would have in San Luis Obispo Creek. Admittedly, as pointed out in his criticism, the criteria used is somewhat arbitrary. However, the lack of additional information (from IFIM studies) necessitates a conservative approach in recommending diversion bypasses during periods of low flow. As illustrated in Table 5 (p. 60), bypasses back to San Luis Obispo Creek would typically be required when creek flows are already extremely low (less than 0.75 cfs). The effect of doubling creek volume (to 1.5 cfs, or less) during such low flow periods in the upper watershed will hardly create a"flood condition" and the additional flows are expected to be an important contribution to dependent wetland species. Finally it should be noted that it was not apparent to project consultants that the city has the necessary precision and real-time instrumentation which would be required to graduate bypasses as suggested by Mr. Romero. However, the DEIR does offer the flexibility for the city and CDFG to develop and implement specific criteria in its Management Plan which could subsequently be evaluated to assess effectiveness. Reference # 3: Although Mr. Romero suggests that the volume proposed in the DEIR for bypass during low flow periods is excessive ("a generous interpretation"), project consultants would counter that during this period, every drop counts. For example, even during summer months when flows at the upper gauging station are less than 1 cfs, there are many areas downstream where the creekbed is dry. During low flow peridos (whether it be months of drought years, or late summer months in "average"years), bypassing water from the creek diversion to San Luis Obispo Creek is critical (and not excessive) if dependent biological resources are to be sustained and enhanced. Letter #2: California Department of Fish and Game Reference # 6: The environmental cost vs. water supply benefit reflects Department policy and opinion. It does not relate to the adequacy of the DEIR. Letter #3: Central Coast Salmon Enhancement Project S% 24 Reference # 11: This statement alludes that the DEIR concludes that Hansen and Gularte creek diversions "could leave San Luis Obispo Creek without enough water to sustain the multitudes of life it supports" and that the "results would be devastating for thousands of fish, including a threatened strain of steelhead trout, hundreds of plant species, birds and other animals". Project consultants feel this statement does not accurately reflect probable project impacts, particularly if diversions are conditional as proposed in the DEIR. Letter#4: California Department of Transportation Reference # 15: The Wetland Creation and Monitorin;Plan and the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (p. 63) called for in the DEIR are intended to ensure downstream biological resources are sustained at acceptable levels. The Plans must be adequate to meet the approval of CDFG. They are to be developed prior to reactivation of the diversions and implemented as agreed between the city and CDFG. The plans should include provisions for assessing the existing population status of key indicator species, then evaluate whether their populations are being adequately protected. Letter#5: Mr. Phil Ashley Reference # 18: Assessments in the DEIR were based upon all available information. Had baseline surveys been conducted prior to 1910,with subsequent surveys conducted between 1910-1976, and then post 1976, they would have been included (to the extent they may have been comparable) in the evaluation of environmental impacts. Conclusions and recommendations expressed in the document are therefore based upon professional judgement and experience, and they are substantiated by observations made during several site surveys conducted during the period of this investigation. Stream flow below the diversions was observed on several occasions from sources in addition to spring box overflow and facility leakage - these sources included springs, seeps and other tributaries. Project consultants would argue that the presence of indicator species (most notably steelhead) downstream of the diversions does in fact provide adequate evidence to conclude that riparian vegetation and dependent biological resources are sustained by existing water sources. However, consultants do acknowledge that just because changes to the riparian corridor are not obvious, does not necessarily mean they have not occurred. As noted on page 49, riparian vegetation responds to changes in streamflow in various ways including subtle physiological responses. Subtle physiological responses are not always apparent - even if an investigation has the benefit of baseline surveys and sound experimental design. Consequently, the lack of available data has necessitated the use of phrases such as "no obvious impact" and "no apparent long term effect" throughout the DEIR as opposed to "no impact". Reference # 19: Changes in habitat were noted below the diversion point on Hansen Creek, however it is unknown how much of this change is attributable to water diversion as opposed to elevation and regional topographic features as these latter two are dominating factors which influence the distribution and abundance of plant species along the creek corridors. This observation can be best appreciated by visiting the sites. S-�-I Reference # 20: The conclusion proposed by Mr.Ashley (i.e., that sparse riparian vegetation between sites 3 and 4 is due to reduced stream flows) is insightful but cannot be substantiated with available data. This conclusion requires clarification on the "places"where Mr. Ashley has observed this sparse vegetation. Additional information is warranted on such factors as rural and agricultural developments in these areas, cattle grazing activities, sedimentation, and geological conditions. The extent to which "historical biological damage" has occurred, if in fact it has,is unknown. Reference # 21 and 27: Returning diverted flows to Hansen and Gularte creeks may result in certain instream benefits in the upper watershed. These benefits would be offset by changes in the assemblage of some species along the freshwater marsh corridor (study site 4). The question should be discussed in further detail with CDFG if this no project alternative is pursued by the city. Such action may be subject to engineering constraints with respectto the city's ability to deliver water to upstream users. Abandoning diversions at the point of origin could also have implications to legal entitlement. If the alternative is seriously considered, the city should solicit additional input from legal and engineering staff, in addition to CDFG. Reference # 22: Referenced sentence (p. 40, last paragraph) should be revised to read: "Impacts are expected to be insignificant for the remaining 9 species due to their habitat requirements and present distribution,assuming degradation to the riparian corridor along upper San Luis Obispo Creek does not occur." Reference # 24: Project consultants agree that revising the city's general plan policy statement to delete wording as proposed cannot be construed as an acceptable form of mitigation for the project. With the exception of this statement in the initial study, policy changes as mitigation are not proposed or alluded to in the DEIR. Reference #25: Opinions stated do not pertain to the adequacy of the DEIR. Reference # 26: It was not the intent of the DEIR to conclude that this water supply alternative "is not worth the ecological sacrifices that will occur". Rather the DEIR has attempted to accurately portray the cost/benefit relationship of a decision to reactivate the project. s'-az PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE (8/7/91) Instrearn Flow Studies on San Luis Obispo Creek Using USFWS IFIM Techniques Task Hours Cost Total Labor Preliminary Investigations/Flaming 16 1,120 Habitat Mapping 32 1,680 Surveying Permanent Transect Sites 16 960 IFIM Feld surveys 168 9,240 Data Analysis 45 3,150 Report Preparation and Submittal 40 2800 Contingency Funding 2,843 Total Labor 21,793 21,793 Other Direct Costs Flowmeter Lease 1,800 Miscellaneous Equipment 300 Travel/Mileage Expenses 150 Communications 40 Reprographics 60 Subtotal CDC 2,350 15%G&A 352 Total ODC 2,702 2,702 2,702 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST 24,495 S-a3