HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/16/1999, C11 - FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN-PHASE 2-CITY PROJECT 90013 council °� s ►c�
j acEnda aEpoat "Ci
CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P O
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Worl */,
Prepared By: Wayne Peterson,City Engineer
SUBJECT: Flood Management Plan-Phase2-City Project 90013
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Approve contract with Questa Engineering in the amount of $545,529 for the preparation of a
Waterway Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek (Flood Management Plan Phase 2) and
authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
Appropriate an additional $400,000 from Zone 9 Revenue to the project account.
DISCUSSION
In June of 1995,the City Council adopted as a goal in the 1995-97 budget to review and reestablish
guidelines for improving and working in waterways. Unfortunately in January and again in March
of 1995 the City experienced severe storm damage to San Luis Obispo Creek. Permits to repair the
damage needed to be obtained from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers.One of the many conditions
established by the Corps prior to issuance of permits was a comprehensive planning
effort/waterway analysis of the creek system. The planning effort was divided into two phases to
allow repair to damaged areas to proceed as fast as possible. The first phase, creek bank repairs,
was completed in late 1999 and included some design elements of the eventual required
planning/waterway analysis. The second phase completes the planning/waterwayanalysis required
by the Corps. Due to Corps requirements,see attached letter from Corps of Engineers, the scope
of work identified in the 1995-97 budget is significantly larger. The 1999-00 Budget included an
additional appropriation of $200,000 for the expanded work scope. Likewise due to the now
regional nature of the work effort,the second phase has become a Zone 9 project with funding from
that agency.
This project has been referred to with various titles including Phase 2-Flood Management Plan.
The official title now is "Waterway Management Plan for San Luis Obispo Creek." Some
confusion also relates to the difference between watershed planning and waterway planning. This
plan looks at the watersh the area that contributes run off to the waterways, but does not present
any plans or recommendations for it. The plan only addresses the needs from both an
environmental and hydraulic viewpoint and identify projects necessary to correct both
environmental and hydrologic problems of the waterways.
The waterway system to be studied includes the entire watershed for San Luis Obispo Creek
beginning at the headwaters in Cuesta Canyon and continuing to the Pacific Ocean at Avila.
Products of this Plan will assist both the City and County in designing of new facilities,the repair
of existing facilities,and planning for flood control. The environment is a key element of anything
done in the waterway and therefore is a key part of this study. The work scope has been limited to
C11-1
Council Agenda Report-Flood Management Plan Phase 2
Page 2
that which is meaningful in the general context of flood control; more specific issues that would
relate to site-specific projects will be left until those projects occur.
The Consultant,Questa Engineering,was chosen through an RFP process to perform this project.
They completed the first phase of the study and prepared construction plans for 7 constructed creek
bank repair projects. The City .staff and.Zone 9 have been negotiating the work scope. for the
second phase with the consultant and the various State and Federal permitting agencies over the
past year. It has taken so long because the project scop_ a must meet the approval of Zone 9, two
state agencies and 4 federal agencies.
Objectives of the project are as.follows:
1. Idents and prioritize the amount and extent of flooding; erosion, water quality, and
ecological.issues in the SLO Watershed.
2. Identify and develop programs to address flooding, erosion, water quality, and ecological
issues in the SLO Watershed.
3. Develop guidelines for design of future development or reconstructed developments in the
SLO Watershed.
4. Develop a programmatic environmental and permitting review process for implementation of
Objectives 2 and 3, as applicable.
5. Develop an Implementation Program.
The following summarizes the work products that will be produced:
Creek Inventory.
This.shall be provided in GIS themes.. Themes shall be broken into two primary subjects; habitat
and geomorphology. There will be sufficient themes created to allow cross referencing to occur.
All data gathered shall be related to the physical location of the data so that geo relationships
may be understood. (Meta-data will be provided for all GIS themes produced in this project.)
Cross Sections.
The Consultant will provide cross-sections, in both.graphic and tabular form. The data will be
in digital form in AutoCAD dwg and/or of files. Sections will be located in a GIS Theme. The
completed Work Program will be designed to meet the work.requirements and spec cations in
the original RFP.
Computer Models.
The Consultant will delivery two models to the City. One will be a hydrologic.model(BOSS WMS
and related HEC-1, T-20)and the other a hydraulic model(HEC RAS). City and County staff will
receive 20 hours training on each. The models will include data files, based on City datum,
necessary to operate them..
C11-2
Council Agenda Report-Flood Management Plan Phase 2
Page 3
Electronic Data
Electronic data files, with geo links, shall be provided as themes in GIS. These files will show
the estimated Q at appropriate nodes within the water shed for storm flows of 2, 10, 50, 100 and
standard project floods. Hydrographs for current conditions at key nodes for each storm shall
be provided or be easily created with the software provided. The hydrologic model will lie set up
to represent current conditions but will be easily adapted to incorporate changes resulting from
changes in land use and channel morphology.
The hydraulic model shall be set up to represent current conditions but also shall be easily
adapted to represent changes in channel morphology and changed situations resulting from
development within the watershed. Electronic data files, with geo links, shall be provided as
themes in GIS. These files will show the result of studies showing the flood plain area and water
surface elevation under 2, 10, 50, 100 and standard project floods and pre-development,
existing, and at current general plan build out of the watershed.
Design Standards.
This will be a manual for use by the City and County to guide the design of projects in the
waterway. It will be a product of Task 3. The design manual will be divided into different areas
including but not limited to the following: (1) Classification of waterways; (2) Hydrologic design
criteria (i.e., design storm, minimum standards, proper calculation procedures, calibration, and
minimum data requirements); (3) Hydraulic design charts and procedures; (4) Bank protection
standards related to specific design parameters; (5) Structural design; (6) Re-vegetation
standards; (7) Right-of-way requirements; (8) Monitoring requirements; and (9) Habitat
management criteria; (10) Flood detention and retention standards.
Flood Management and Maintenance Plan.
This document shall state the current geomorphology and habitat status of the creek It will
explain the cause and relationship of the current situation as compared to a healthy undisturbed
creek This document will also document the existing flood problems in the watershed. The Plan
will include a listing of projects that will solve problems in the watershed. Types of problems
include unstable banks, non-native riparian planting, degraded riparian areas,flood break out
areas, and general flooding. Projects will be listed in priority by the type of problem they solve.
It will include estimated cost, mitigation that will allow the project to occur without increasing
problems in the watershed, benefits, including monetary, conceptual drawings where
appropriate, listing of permits required to proceed and information that will be required to
obtain a permit. This plan will be a product of Tasks 4, 5 and 8.
,Municipal Storm Water Management Program.
The final report for Task 6 will be a listing of current activities that satisfy the requirements of
NPDES and their current costs and a listing of activities that must be started and their costs.
The report will include recommendations for methods to pay for the program both short and
long term.
Programmatic EIR/EM
Administrative Draft, Draft, and a Final Programmatic EIR/EIS will be prepared following the
guidelines adopted by the City, County, and Corps of Engineers. This Work Program includes all
of the work necessary to take the project from initial scoping and noticing through presentations
C11-3
Council Agenda Report-Flood Management Plan Phase 2
Page 4
before approval bodies, response to comments, and final documentation. This is a product of
Task 7.
CONCURRENCES
Zone 9 committee and members of the Community Development Staff have reviewed the scope of
work for the Phase 2 project and recommend the City proceed with the contract. Zone 9 received
public comment and the plan modified accordingly. The Corps of Engineers will be responsible for
processing a NEPA document with this project. They have held two advertised scoping meetings
in the City where the public was invited to speak on issues they felt should be covered by this
project and the related CEQA and NEPA documents. Zone 9 held meetings monthly this year to
define the scope and to be sure the project results in a meaningful product.
FISCAL IMPACT
The scope of the project is regional. Therefore the funding for this program comes from the County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 budget. The City has budgeted$200,000 in
the adopted budget and$430,000 in the 1998/9 Budget. Unfortunately the money budgeted in the
earlier budget was used to repair creek bank damage. Therefore the Council is being asked to
appropriate an additional $400,000 for this project at this time from Zone 9 Revenue. Upon
approval of an agreement between the County and the City,the City will be able to begin billing the
County for reimbursement.
Revenue Sources Expenditure Estimates
Zone 9-1998-99 Agreement-$ 50,000 Survey Contract approved in October$53,821
Zone 9-1999-00 Agreement-$550.000 (Zone 9 Portion)
Total $600.000 This Contract $545.529
Total $599,350
Appropriated in 1999-00 Budget
$200,000
Additional appropriationneeded
$400,000
ALTERNATIVES
The City may choose not to proceed with the preparation of this plan. Doing so would mean that
the Council would not meet goals established in each of the 1995-7, 1997-9 and 1999-2001
Budgets. The Council could direct staff to reduce the scope of the project but again this would
mean that established goals would not be met and possibly the loss of Zone 9 funding.
Attachments
Letter from Corps of Engineers dated April 30, 1996
E-mails from National Marine Fisheries,Fish and Wildlife Service,and Army Corps of Engineers
Contract with Questa Engineering for Survey(In Council Reading File)
Qengr/drainage/Flood Management Plan/Phase 2 work/Work Scope/Phase 2 comraW=phase 2 award-primary contract
C11-4
Scanned copy of letter received May 6, 1996
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS VENTURA RELD
OFRCE 2151 ALESSANDRO DRIVE, SUITE 255 VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001
April 30, 1996
RECEIVED,
MAY 6 1996
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Mr. Wayne Peterson
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Peterson:
As you are aware, the Corps of Engineers (Corps) asserted discretionary
authority [33 CFR 330.1(d) ] over bank stabilization measures within San Luis
Obispo Creek and its tributaries that are located within the City's property
boundaries due to cumulative adverse impacts to aquatic resources. Compliance
with the nationwide permit program requires that activities not result in more
than minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects on the environment.
Furthermore, Corps regulations recognize that cumulative effects of numerous
piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of aquatic resources [33 CFR
Part 320.400) (3) ] . It appears that existing bank stabilization measures have
resulted in substantial fragmentation of habitat, loss of wildlife movement
corridors, severe loss of floodplain values, channel constriction and incision.
The Corps determined that any subsequent proposal to channelize or otherwise
substantially impact San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries would result in
greater than minimal cumulative impacts and would require authorization under an
individual permit.
In order to evaluate installation of additional bank stabilization
measures, the Corps in a letter dated October 19, 1995, requested the City
submit the following information:
a. A hydraulic study which analyzes the potential upstream and downstream
impacts of installing rock rip-rap in areas where there is currently no bank
protection.
b. An analysis of cumulative impacts of bank stabilization projects on San
Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries located with the City property boundaries.
The analysis should consider anticipated changes in physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the waterway.
c. Alternatives to rock slope protection which would meet the overall
project purpose of erosion prevention.
d. A detailed revegetation plan in, accordance with the Corps' Habitat
Mitigation' Guidelines. "
On December 5, 1995, you submitted a draft "Request for Proposals" for
review and approval by the Corps. The Proposal outlined the scope of work to be
prepared by a consultant per our October 19, 1995 correspondence. Bid responses
C11-5
from various consultants suggested that the City would be unable to fund such an
undertaking. Therefore, a meeting was held on February 22, 1996, with
representatives from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, City
of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Corps of Engineers, and The Lands
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
the scope of work necessary to meet the concerns of the Corps. In that meeting,
you requested the Corps reconsider the .list of requirements presented in our
October 19,1995 letter. To assist the Corps in making such a determination, you
provided the Corps with the following documents:
a. Nolte, George. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed. August 1977.
b. Reents, Mary Battershill. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, San
Luis Obispo Creek Modifications to Accommodate Tract 592. July 1978.
c. County of San Luis Obispo. Environmental Impact Report, Zone 9 Flood
Control & Drainage Master Plan. December 1978.
d. Nolte, George. Preliminary Design Report Flood Control Modifications
for San Luis Obispo Creek. December 1981.
e. Nolte, George. Final Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo Creek
Flood Control Modification. August 1982. '
f. Corps of Engineers. Final Survey Report for Flood Control and Related
Purposes, San Luis Obispo County Streams. February 1987.
g. -City of San Luis Obispo. Water Reuse Project. December 1995.
h. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. Draft San Luis Obispo
Creek Watershed Hydrologic Survey. March 1996.
Your intent in providing these documents was to facilitate reducing
duplication of effort and possibly eliminate the requirement to prepare a study
entirely.
We have reviewed these documents in accordance with the "Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material" [40 CFR Part 230]
established by the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Guidelines) . The
Guidelines require that no discharge of dredged and fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences
[40 CFR 230.10) . Although there is a fair amount of valuable information
-3-
contained in the documents you provided, the various flood control alternatives
previously considered are outdated (1977-1987) , do not consider more modern,
environmentally-sensitive bank stabilization techniques, and do not demonstrate
a fundamental appreciation for the importance of avoiding and minimizing adverse
impacts on important aquatic resources. Furthermore, the hydrology and
biological assessments are outdated. Most of the information was compiled
between 1977 and 1987. These assessments do not reflect current conditions. More
recent biological and hydrological assessments were conducted in 1995 for the
Water Reuse Project which occurs in the extreme southern portion of the City.
The hydrology assessment modeled impacts resulting from a decline in the amount
of reclaimed water that would be discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek below the
Water Reclamation Facility, not impacts due to flood control modifications.
Furthermore, the biological assessment studied lower San Luis Obispo Creek and
its tributaries at and below the Water Reclamation Facility. This assessment
only addresses a small portion of the watershed that occurs with the City's
property boundaries. Furthermore, the studies do not appear to contain
C11-6
sufficient control measures to ensure that mitigation measures would be
implemented to offset identified adverse impacts.
We recognize the City's need to provide flood control for local residences
and public facilities both in the short-term and long-term. With this in mind,
we have revised the scope of work accordingly. Because four of the five bank
stabilization projects identified as an immediate need occur in the County of
San Luis Obispo's Middle San Luis Obispo Creek Master Drainage Plan, dated
August 1977, you must prepare a detailed alternative analysis for this entire
reach in accordance with the Guidelines. The objective of the analysis shall be
to identify the least environmentally-damaging practicable flood control
alternative for this reach. The purpose and focus of this analysis shall
emphasize avoidance and then minimization of important aquatic resources. In
addition, you shall develop a mitigation plan to offset any unavoidable adverse
impacts. Condition of approval will be that you also prepare a comprehensive,
long-term drainage plan for San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries located
with the City's property boundaries. This plan shall consist of more than merely
updating the County of San Luis Obispo's 1977 Master Drainage Plan. The purpose
and focus of the comprehensive plan is to ensure that aquatic resource impacts
are first avoided, then minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The plan
shall include a) an analysis of alternatives that meet the overall project
purpose of anticipated flood control needs, b) identification of habitat
quantity, width and location of habitat fragmentation, and c) mitigation
measures to offset unavoidable adverse impacts.
Please note that if you elect to pursue additional bank stabilization
projects beyond these studied for Middle San Luis Obispo Creek and prior to the
Corps approval of the comprehensive, long-term drainage plan, you will need to
seek an individual permit for those additional projects. In addition, you will
need to submit documentation, similar what is now being required for the Middle
San Luis Obispo Creek Drainage Plan, for the entire drainage plan in which the
project lies.
It is highly recommended that you eventually submit a single individual
permit application for the comprehensive, long-term drainage plan. This approach
is consistent with effective watershed planning and is supported by regulations
which state that all activities which the applicant plans to undertake which are
reasonably related to the same project and for which a permit would be required
should be included in the same permit application [33 CFR 325.1(D) (2)) . In
addition to allowing for complete consideration of incremental and cumulative
impacts, such a planning approach could eliminate the current climate of
continual controversy over each individually proposed project. This process
would facilitate installation of comprehensive flood control measures for local
residents, minimize adverse effects on important aquatic resources, and, in the
long run, would expedite permit review of the entire drainage plan.
If you have any questions, please contact Tiffany Welch of my staff at
(805) 641-2935. Please refer to this letter and 95-50327-TAW in your reply.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Schubel Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
C11-7
Scanned copy of letter received May 6, 1996
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS VENTURA RELD
OFRCE 2151 ALESSANDRO DRIVE, SUITE 255 VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001
April 30, 1996
RECEIVED,
MAY 6 1996
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Mr. Wayne Peterson
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Dear Mr. Peterson:
As you are aware, the Corps of Engineers (Corps) asserted discretionary
authority [33 CFR 330.1(d) ] over bank stabilization measures within San Luis
Obispo Creek and its tributaries that are located within the City's property
boundaries due to cumulative adverse impacts to aquatic resources. Compliance
with the nationwide permit program requires that activities not result in more
than minimal individual or cumulative adverse effects on the environment.
Furthermore, Corps regulations recognize that cumulative effects of numerous
piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of aquatic resources [33 CFR
Part 320.400) (3) ] . It appears that existing bank stabilization measures have
resulted in substantial fragmentation of habitat, loss of wildlife movement
corridors, severe loss of floodplain values, channel constriction and incision.
The Corps determined that any subsequent proposal to channelize or otherwise
substantially impact San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries would result in
greater than minimal cumulative impacts and would require authorization under an
individual permit.
In order to evaluate installation of additional bank stabilization
measures, the Corps in a letter dated October 19, 1995, requested the City
submit the following information:
a. A hydraulic study which analyzes the potential upstream and downstream
impacts of installing rock rip-rap in areas where there is currently no bank
protection.
b. An analysis of cumulative impacts of bank stabilization projects on San
Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries located with the City property boundaries.
The analysis should consider anticipated changes in physical, chemical, and
biological characteristics of the waterway.
c. Alternatives to rock slope protection which would meet the overall
project purpose of erosion prevention.
d. A detailed revegetation plan in' accordance with the Corps' Habitat
Mitigation' Guidelines. °
On December 5, 1995, you submitted a draft °Request for Proposals° for
review and approval by the Corps. The Proposal outlined the scope of work to be
C11-8
Page 5
prepared by a consultant per our October 19, 1995 correspondence. Bid responses
from various consultants suggested that the City would be unable to fund such an
undertaking. Therefore, a meeting was held on February 22, 1996, with
representatives from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, City
of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, Corps of Engineers, and The Lands
Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss
the scope of work necessary to meet the concerns of the Corps. In that meeting,
you requested the Corps reconsider the .list of requirements presented in our
October 19,1995 letter. To assist the Corps in making such a determination, you
provided the Corps with the following documents:
a. Nolte, George. Flood Control and Drainage Master Plan for the San Luis
Obispo Creek Watershed. August 1977.
b. Reents, Mary Battershill. Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, San
Luis Obispo Creek Modifications to Accommodate Tract 592. July 1978.
c. County of San Luis Obispo. Environmental Impact Report, Zone 9 Flood
Control & Drainage Master Plan. December 1978.
d. Nolte, George. Preliminary Design Report Flood Control Modifications
for San Luis Obispo Creek. December 1981.
e. Nolte, George. Final Environmental Impact Report, San Luis Obispo Creek
Flood Control Modification. August 1982. '
f. Corps of Engineers. Final Survey Report for Flood Control and Related
Purposes, San Luis Obispo County Streams. February 1987.
g. -City of San Luis Obispo. Water Reuse Project. December 1995.
h. The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County. Draft San Luis Obispo
Creek Watershed Hydrologic Survey. March 1996.
Your intent in providing these documents was to facilitate reducing
duplication of effort and possibly eliminate the requirement to prepare a study
entirely.
We have reviewed these documents in accordance with the "Guidelines for
Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material" [40 CFR Part 230]
established by the Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter Guidelines) . The
Guidelines require that no discharge of dredged and fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the proposed discharge which
would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the
alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences
[40 CFR 230.101 . Although there is a fair amount of valuable information
-3-
contained in the documents you provided, the various flood control alternatives
previously considered are outdated (1977-1987) , do not consider more modern,
environmentally-sensitive bank stabilization techniques, and do not demonstrate
a fundamental appreciation for the importance of avoiding and minimizing adverse
impacts on important aquatic resources. Furthermore, the hydrology and
biological assessments are outdated. Most of the information was compiled
between 1977 and 1987. These assessments do not reflect current conditions. More
recent biological and hydrological assessments were conducted in 1995 for the
Water Reuse Project which occurs in the extreme southern portion of the City.
The hydrology assessment modeled impacts resulting from a decline in the amount
of reclaimed water that would be discharged into San Luis Obispo Creek below the
Water Reclamation Facility, not impacts due to flood control modifications.
Furthermore, the biological assessment studied lower San Luis Obispo Creek and
its tributaries at and below the Water Reclamation Facility. This assessment
C11-9
Page 6
only addresses a small portion of the watershed that occurs with the City's
property boundaries. Furthermore, the studies do not appear to contain
sufficient control measures to ensure that mitigation measures would be
implemented to offset identified adverse impacts.
We recognize the City's need to provide flood control for local residences
and public facilities both in the short-term and long-term. With this in mind,
we have revised the scope of work accordingly. Because four of the five bank
stabilization projects identified as an immediate need occur in the County of
San Luis Obispo's Middle San Luis Obispo Creek Master Drainage Plan, dated
August 1977, you must prepare a detailed alternative analysis for this entire
reach in accordance with the Guidelines. The objective of the analysis shall be
to identify the least environmentally-damaging practicable flood control
alternative for this reach. The purpose and focus of this analysis shall
emphasize avoidance and then minimization of important aquatic resources. In
addition, you shall develop a mitigation plan to offset any unavoidable adverse
impacts. Condition of approval will be that you also prepare a comprehensive,
long-term drainage plan for San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries located
with the City's property boundaries. This plan shall consist of more than merely
updating the County of San Luis Obispo's 1977 Master Drainage Plan. The purpose
and focus of the comprehensive plan is to ensure that aquatic resource impacts
are first avoided, then minimized to the maximum extent practicable. The plan
shall include a) an analysis of alternatives that meet the overall project
purpose of anticipated flood control needs, b) identification of habitat
quantity, width and location of habitat fragmentation, and c) mitigation
measures to offset unavoidable adverse impacts.
Please note that if you elect to pursue additional bank stabilization
projects beyond these studied for Middle San Luis Obispo Creek and prior to the
Corps approval of the comprehensive, long-term drainage plan, you will need to
seek an individual permit for those additional projects. In addition, you will
need to submit documentation, similar what is now being required for the Middle
San Luis Obispo Creek Drainage Plan, for the entire drainage plan in which the
project lies.
It is highly recommended that you eventually submit a single individual
permit application for the comprehensive, long-term drainage plan. This approach
is consistent with effective watershed planning and is supported by regulations
which state that all activities which the applicant plans to undertake which are
reasonably related to the same project and for which a permit would be required
should be included in the same permit application [33 CFR 325.1(D) (2) ] . In
addition to allowing for complete consideration of incremental and cumulative
impacts, such a planning approach could eliminate the current climate of
continual controversy over each individually proposed project. This process
would facilitate installation of comprehensive flood control measures for local
residents, minimize adverse effects on important aquatic resources, and, in the
long run, would expedite permit review of the entire drainage plan.
If you have any questions, please contact Tiffany Welch of my staff at
(805) 641-2935. Please refer to this letter and 95-50327-TAW in your reply.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Schubel Acting Chief, Regulatory Branch
C11-10
Page 7
Wayne Peterson- RE: Phase 2 works
From: <twelch®spl.usace.army.mil>
To: <WPETERSO@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>, <Anthony.Spina@noaa.gov>
Date: 11/3/99 3:28PM
Subject: RE: Phase 2 work scope
Wayne,
I have looked over the scope of work for Phase 2 dated October 14, 1999, and
request one minor change. On page 18, under Project Mitigation, beginning
of second sentence add "NEPA"after"CEQA. Otherwise, the scope of work is
acceptable to me. Upon receipt of the final scope of work, I will forward a
formal acceptance letter.
For your information, the Corps is considering the development of a 404 LOP
as "the project"the Corps will analyzing in the EIS/EIR. THe 404 LOP
provides for longer permit effectiveness and greater level of impact(i.e.,
doesn't have to be minimal)than statutorily required for Regional General
Permits. At the next Zone 9 meeting I will provide greater detail for
everyone.
Any questions,call me.
Regards,
Tiffany
C11-11
Wayne Peterson-Re:Phase 2 scop Work
From: <Carol Tyson®ri.fws.gov>
To: 'Wayne Peterson°<WPETERSO@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us>
Date: Friday, October 15, 199910:11AM
Subject: Re:Phase 2 scope of work
Wayne, It was good to meet with the group yesterday. I am planning to
attend the mtg scheduled in January. I am sending this message at your
request to provide a written commitment from our office that we will
continue to work on this project. I am assigned to see this project
through to completion and have support to do so. Please file this message
as a record that FWS will continue to participate and supports the effort
to date in terms of the process developed to address listed species. I
believe this is the most timely way for us to show our support as letters
generated from this office are not moving through quickly. Thanks, Carol
Tyson
C11-12
i�jffla)De Peterson-revision to habitat tat' r phase II work - Page 1
From: Anthony Spina<Anthony.Spina@noaa.gov>
To: <wpeterso@ci.san-luis-obispo.caus>
Date: Thursday, October 14, 19991:24PM
Subject: revision to habitat table for phase II work
Wayne:
After I spoke with you this morning, I gave additional thought to the
revised habitat table(i.e.,the one incorporating the McCain et al.
1990 and Platts et al. 1983 information) and decided it would be fine
as is. I spoke with Mary and informed her of my decision. You should
receive a letter from NMFS in the immediate future,which authorizes
the City's scope of work.
Best regards
Anthony Spina
National Marine Fisheries Service
Long Beach
CC: <tiffany.a.welch@sp101.usace.army.mil>
Cll-13