HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/16/2002, C11 - UPPER SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK DAM REMOVAL: SPECIFICATION NO. 90296, AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NE councit '7-r' 6-02
j acEnaa RepoRt C11
CITY O F SAN LUIS 0 B I S P 0
FROM: Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officerl
Prepared By: Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: UPPER SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK DAM REMOVAL:
SPECIFICATION NO. 90296, AND APPROVAL OF
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Approve plans and specifications for the project known as "Upper San Luis Obispo Creek Dam
Removal";
2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids;
3. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is
within the project budget of$275,500; and
4. Approve a mitigated negative declaration for the project.
DISCUSSION
The upper San Luis Obispo Creek dam is a non-functional water diversion structure built in the late
1800's or early 1900's as part of the City's water supply. It is located along Stagecoach Road just
above its intersection with Highway 101 (see attached map). This facility captured water from San
Luis Obispo Creek and diverted it into apipeline, which conducted that water, plus water from the
nearby Hansen and Gularte Creeks, to the reservoirs at Fox Hollow Road and the Miossi property.
This system was abandoned in the 1950's or early 1960's and has not functioned since that time.
The dam, which is approximately 14 feet high, is filled with sediment and today constitutes a
complete barrier to the movement of steelhead and other native fishes in this area. The City applied
for grant funds to effect removal of the dam and was successful in obtaining a grant from the
California Department of Fish and Game of$310,000 for the project, and a contract in amount not
to exceed $34,500 to Questa Engineering for permit preparation and engineering services was
signed in October 2001.
Engineering drawings for the project are completed, and we are now awaiting permits from Federal
regulatory agencies, and anticipate having them by the end of July. Timing of the project has
become critical due to some delays in the permit process, and therefore, it is recommended that the
project be advertised now so that work may begin as soon as possible after receiving permits.
The actual work will consist of partial removal of the dam, placement of rock into the streambed to
create 16 "step pools" to facilitate fish passage over the site of the dam, and restoration work on
vegetation impacted by the construction activity. If all goes according to schedule, work should
begin in August and take six to eight weeks to complete. The goal is to complete the work before
the fall rains begin-
C11-1
Council Agenda Report—Upper San Luis Obispo Creek Dam Removal
Page 2
The cost of the project (including removal of all or portions of the dam, sediment removal and
disposal, and revegetation) is estimated by Questa Engineering to be $199,300, plus a 20%
contingency ($39,860) bringing the total estimated cost to $239,160. This is approximately
$35,000 less than the amount remaining from the grant. These funds will be held in the event bids
are higher than the engineer's estimate, and for incidental expanses that may occur.
A mitigated negative declaration for the project was prepared on May 29,2002, and duly noticed in
the Tribune. Primary mitigation measures were those involved with protection of other sensitive
species known or believed to occur in the area, protection of air and water quality by bypassing
creek flows around the work site,proper use of equipment, and refueling methods, and revegetation
of the site upon completion of the work. No comments were received during the 30 day comment
period. Therefore it is recommended that the Council approve the mitigated negative declaration.
FISCAL IMPACT
This contract will have a beneficial fiscal effect by providing outside funding support for an
identified City enhancement project. Costs of staff support can be absorbed within the existing
Natural Resource Protection Program budget. The overall project budget (completely funded by
the grant) is as follows:
Engineering and Permit Services $34,500
Construction $275,500
TOTAL $310,000
CONCURRENCES
The Utilities Department,which administers the property on which the dam is located, supports this
effort, as removal of the dam is a clear benefit to fishery within San Luis Obispo Creek. The Public
Works Department has provided assistance with this project since its inception and anticipates
being able to continue to do so during the construction period itself. Natural Resources staff,
however, is assumed to have the primary responsibility of carrying out of the project; this effort has
been a major priority in the work program of the City Biologist for the current year.
ALTERNATIVE
The Council could decide not to proceed with the project. This is not recommended,however, as it
would constitute a reversal of previously stated intentions of the Council in this matter.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Initial Study
(Note: Plans and specifications are available in the Council reading filer see site plan in the Initial
Study)
g/HavUlcouncilagendddam removal bid
C11-2
U \ ' `
`)�'
ti
ATION i' %/1 ' ♦ ) ,
R'n 165 II �• \ $ \ r -ill
./95 1�
o + I '27]]
�S !� I O ♦ 4 •`+ ,/111 ..F
+♦ .. O I. (ter' + i �i- ./iZO� ♦ ir�V�!.1�
Fq
024 t'
07
BM.
` II � ♦ �I � o I \ ,•��'_vim
Project Site
- �11 1161 ' ''1 s n � . / \•\,` — �
1 i (f
1� 4 BOO 18
1
.951 I e00
spnng
^
%.�. � \ 11 ',��VL ..•. i � / �.- '\ �\\ �
\-01 .
Gb
2533<
411
Project Location Map
City of San Luis Obispo
UPPER SAN LUIS OBISPO CREEK DAM REMOVAL PROJECT
San Luis Obispo, CA.
U. S. G. S. Quadrangle: Lopez Mountain
1"= Z,000, C11-3
ATTACHMENT 2
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For RR # 03 —(?Z
1. Project Title: Upper San Luis Obispo Dam Removal Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
q q o 0&Palm Street
JSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401
J 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager
805-781-7211
4. Project Location: Upper San Luis Obispo Creek in San Luis Obispo
County. The project site is located in the upper
reaches of the creek, approximately 4,500 in (3.0
miles) northeast of the City of San Luis Obispo. The
dam is located 760 m (0.5 miles) upstream of the
Highway 101 bridge near the Old Stagecoach Road
entrance.
I5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Same as above.
6. General Plan Designation:
I
7. Zoning:
I8. Description of the Project:
I1 San Luis Obispo Creek contains a viable population of southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss
` irideus) and enhancement of this population is a high priority locally. While San Luis Obispo Creek is
1 relatively unobstructed to fish passage for much of its length, its upper reaches are blocked by an
abandoned water supply dam located approximately 550 in (0.3 miles) upstream of the Old Stagecoach
Road bridge. The reservoir behind the 4m (13 ft) high dam is filled with sediment. The dam constitutes a
�. significant barrier to the movement of steelhead and other native fishes in this area.
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1 1) restore steelhead access to the upper reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek
2) create stable channel bed and banks
1 3) improve in-stream habitat
_ The project proposes a partial removal of the existing dam and the creation of a new stable channel bed
1 and banks. Gradient control in the new channel entails the installation of low rock weir drop structures.
Biotechnical bank stabilization on the newly graded slopes includes the use of erosion control blankets
and willow pole staking. The proposed project is described in detail in the attached Project Description.
C11-4
ATTACHMENT 2
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
San Luis Obispo Creek runs from its headwaters near Cuesta Pass in the Santa Lucia Mountains
southwest through the City of San Luis Obispo (the City) to the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. The
project area is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County. The setting is rural and the population
distribution is sparse. Land use designations in the San Luis Obispo Planning Area in the project vicinity
include agriculture, rural lands, rural residential, and open space. No public facilities occur in or adjacent
to the project area. The closest such use is the California State Polytechnic Institute, located more than
one mile west of the existing Highway 101 corridor.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: .
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The proposed dam removal project will require a California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG)
Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1601), a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 401-
permit,
04permit, and a Water Quality Certification from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Discussions will be held with.the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
7 Service to design steelhead access above the existing dam site and to minimize impacts to special status
species.
7
l
i_
I
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
C11-5
ATTACHMENT 2
.! ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
,d
Aesthetics X Geology/Soils Public Services
JAgricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation
Materials
Air Quality --X-- Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
J --X-- Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service
Systems
J Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
J Energy and Mineral Population and Housing
Resources v xs: rr� � yq a, s al
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
--X— and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
�A Crry OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INIAL STUDY ENVIRONMeu"14ST 20112
-� ATTACHMENT 2
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will.be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
-April f212 2 cnZ
Signature Date
[7�,Zy-) M dpy-� e jay-) For:John Mandeville,
Printed Name Community Development Dir.
® �a� CITY OF SAN LUIS 08ISPo 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIAONIST 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A "No Impact" answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one
involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is
based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to
pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take.account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each
issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any,used to evaluate each question.
1 "Potentially Significant Impact'is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are
one or more"Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4: "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has
reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must
describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level
(mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California
Administrators Code. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6: Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. 'Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion should identify the following:
J
�.ti CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIROVIVf ICKLIST 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of an,
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
J to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
7
7
7
1
1
l
1
1
C11-9
JIssues, Discussion and SupF g Information Sources Sources ntially Potentially Less 7}inn No
stglificant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
1 Mitigation
Inc orated
J1.AESTHETICS. Would the roject:
a) Have.a substantial advers e•effect on a scenic vista?
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited
to,trees, rock outcroppings;open space,and historic buildings X
within a local or state scenic highway?
e) Substantially degrade the existing-visual character or quality of
' the site and its surroundings? X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
--
adversely ersel effect-da -cifTii htdme views in the area? X
posed project would result in the partial removal of the existing dam. Implementation of the proposed project would
effect on a scenic vista. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources
scenichighway. Implementation of the project would result in an overall long-term beneficial effect on the visual
and quality of the creek corridor. Implementation of the project would not result in a new source of substantial light
or glare.
2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the ro"ect:
ha) ConveifP.rimelarmland,UniqueFarmland,oi:Farmland.of
tatewide:lmpoiYance�Faimland);'as's'hown%op ihe'maps
pursuani.to the Farmland Ntappmg and,);1tnrttlg Program of X-
K theLafifotntaResourcesA ency,to-notagraculturalaie�
�� K Qnflicf:withex>stmgzoninglonagi�rculturxl;use
Williamson Ali eontradT X—
x),,:Involveother changes.in,the existing_environment,which;due to
-#heirlocation or nature;could xesult'in conversion of Farmland,
l to non-a ictiltural use?
J The proposed project occurs on public property owned by the City of San Luis Obispo.No conversion of land uses, including
agricultural lands,would occur as a result of these projects.No impact would occur.
3. AIR QUALITY. Would the ro'ect:
a)
idl£te ian�air quahtytandard nrctan
ontnbute apbstia'llyno an
� xxisf�tii�;oc�noleoted.artju'ality�a�ad�ato$?�' : --X--
1 )$� orifl}ot�wtth`'or obstiuct implemeniaiidn of ie applicable air
�� xpose'sensiiivereceptors to+substantial p0llut2nt '
1 concentratiiirls? - X--
d) 'Crdate o'bjedtionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? X-
.e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
polIdtarit for which the projeci region is non=attaitiment under an
applida'ble federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including"Teleasiag emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds-for ozoneprecursors)?
r
The project site is located in the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), which monitors air
quality at nine locations throughout the County. The APCD shares responsibility with the California Air Resources
r Board (ARB) for ensuring that all State and Federal ambient air quality standards are attained within the District. The
closest station to the project site was located in the City of San Luis Obispo at Marsh Street. Table I shows air quality
data for criteria pollutants measured at this station for 1998-2000.
r
�r CiTY OF SAN LUIS Oeispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIROtQyleJ0LIST 2002
TACH ENT 2
Issues, Discussion and SupF ig Information Sources Sources \tially Potentially Ltss Than No
... "ificarn Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
1 ER #
Mitigation
Inco orated
1 Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (ARB) have established
ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. The EPA has jurisdiction under the Federal Clean Air Act to
develop Federal air quality standards and require individual states to prepare State Implementation Plans to attain these
standards. The ARB has jurisdiction under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Clean Air Act to
develop California air quality standards, to require regional plans to attain these standards, and to coordinate the
preparation by local air districts of plans required by both the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. The Federal and state
ambient standards were developed independently with differing purposes and methods, although both processes
attempted to avoid heath-related effects. As a result, the Federal and states standards differ in some cases. In general, the
California state standards are more stringent.This is particularly true for ozone and fine particulate matter(PM-10).
Both ozone and PM-10 are considered regional pollutants in that concentrations are not determined by proximity to
J individual sources, but show a relative uniformity over a region. Thus, the data shown in Table I for ozone and PM-10
provide a good characterization of levels of these pollutants on the project site. Carbon monoxide is a local pollutant, i.e.,
high concentrations are normally only found very near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide, a colorless,
odorless, poisonous gas, is automobile traffic. Elevated concentrations, therefore,are usually only found in or near areas
7 of high traffic volumes. The project site is actually.located 3 miles outside the City of San Luis Obispo in a more rural
setting. As a result, the data shown in Table 1 for carbon monoxide are most likely higher than concentrations that would
be found near the proposed project site.
1 Table 1.Summary of Air Quality Monitoring Data from the
City of San Luis Obispo at Marsh Street Monitoring Station
s+,r:.
.�3'':
4 ` j�' '} , a"liforntay _�Monttor►n Resultsl
,E' N.rL ua d�ra1Y^� wk+ 7.ny a.an r «n
„ollutant c�aramete �rY tanda�r $ar 2OWT4i.-N-1 ON, !IFO-Ox
Ozone 1-hour maximum 0.12 pprn 0.09 ppim 0.07 0.09 0.08
J
Days above state standard 0 0 0
J Carbon Monoxide 8-hour maximum 9 pprn 9 ppm 2.34 3.13 2.25
Da s above state standard 0 0 0
PM-10 24-hours 150pg/in 3 50 m' 32.2 42.0 44.0
Das above state standard 0 0 0
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act of 1988 require that the ARB, based on air quality
monitoring data, designate portions of the state where the Federal or state ambient air quality standards are not met as
.1nonattainment areas" This designation is different under the Federal and state legislations due to differences between
national and state standards. San Luis Obispo County is in attainment of the Federal air quality standards and is not
subject to the planning requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act. Under the state air quality program, San Luis Obispo
County has been identified as a non-attainment area for both ozone(1-hr standard)and PMIO by the ARB.
a-b)Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with an existing or projected air quality violation.
Implementation of the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of air quality attainment plans for
the County of San Luis Obispo,specifically the 1995 County Clean Air Plan(CAP).
c) The APCD defines sensitive receptors as facilities where sensitive receptor population groups (children, the elderly,
the acutely ill and the chronically ill) are likely to be located. With the primary surrounding land uses being
agriculture and rural residential, sensitive receptors are not located in high densities near the project site. With the
implementation of the mitigation measures described below, impacts to sensitive receptors will be reduced to less-
than-significant.
d) Implementation of the project would not create objectionable odors. No impact would occur.
e) Implementation of the proposed project would not result in long-term changes in air quality in the city. However,
project construction activities will likely result in short-term changes to air quality. These temporary construction
emissions include tailpipe emissions of ozone precursors, carbon monoxide, and PM-l0 and fugitive dust emissions
from earth-moving activities and vehicle travel on unpaved maintenance roads. Fugitive dust can be emitted by the
1 action of equipment and vehicles and as a result of wind erosion over exposed earth surfaces. Clearing, grading and
7 2011=0 C.rry OF SAN Luis OBISPO 8 INMAL STUDY ENVIRel ,1614cKLIST 2002
- ATTACHMENT 2
No
Issues, Discussion and Suppor, nformation Sources Sources P: lly Potentially Less'Man
Sig),rtfcant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
] ER # Mitigation
Inco orated
earthmoving activities comprise the major source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and general disturbance
of the soil also generate significant dust emissions. In addition, demolition of existing pavement and revetment,and
removal of demolition debris from the site, will also generate dust.
However, the impacts are temporary, and with the mitigation measures described below, impacts to air quality will
be less-than-significant. The APCD specifies Best Available Control Technology for construction projects contained
within the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (San Luis Obispo County APCD, 1997).
Equipment Emission Control Measures:
AIR-1: The District shall require that all fossil-fueled equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned
according to:manufacturer specifications
AIR-2: The District shall require that all off-road and portable diesel-powered equipment, including but not
limited to bulldozers, graders, cranes, loaders, scrapers, backhoes, generator sets, compressors, auxiliary
power units,shall be fueled exclusively with ARB motor vehicle diesel fuel
AIR-3: The District shall require installation of oxidation catalysts on the two pieces of diesel-fueled
equipment project to.generate the greatest emissions. It is expected that bulldozers would be the highest
emitters.
Dust Control Measures: These measures augment dust control requirements of Section 7-8.1 of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction.
AIR-4: During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill materials, water
trucks or sprinkler systems are to be used to prevent dust from leaving the site and to create a crust after
each day's activities cease.
AIR-5: During construction, water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used to keep all areas of vehicle
movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. At a minimum, this would include wetting
down such areas in the morning and after work is completed for the day and whenever wind exceeds 15 mph.
AIR-6:Stockpiled earth material shall be sprayed as needed to minimize dust generation
AIR-7: During construction, the amount of disturbed area shall be minimized, and on-site vehicle speeds
should be reduced to 15 mph or less.
JAIR-8: Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates more than one month after initial
grading should be sown with a fast-germinating native grass seed and watered until vegetation is established
AIR-9: After clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation is completed, the entire area of disturbed soil
shall be treated immediately by watering or revegetating or spreading soil binders to minimize dust
lgeneration until the area is paved or otherwise developed to prevent dust generation
AIR-10: Grading and scraping operations shall be suspended when wind speeds exceed 20 mph (one hour
average)
JAIR-11: All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks associated with construction activities should be paved as
soon as possible, In addition, building and other pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
AIR-12: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose material shall be covered or shall maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
JCRY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIROCA 4AJQ42LIST 2002
- AT HMENT "c
Issues, Discussion and Supp g Information Sourcesttial Potentially Less Than No
s.roificam Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER ri sources
Mitigation
Inco orated
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Have a substantial4tiversezffect,either directly or indirectly or -X--
through habitat'modifications,on any species identified as a
candidate,.'sensitive,or special status species in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or.bythe California Department
of Fish and Game or'U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department X
ofEi&h and,Game-orVU S.Fish and Wildlife Service"?
c) Couflict.withany local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or X._
ordinance(e.g.!Heritage Trees)?
d)' Interfere sali'stanhally with the movement of any native resident
or mrgmtoryfish or wildlife specie's or with'establrshed rIAttve-
resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of
wtldl'ifeiiurserysites. "
e) Conflict.with the provisions of.an adopted habitat Conservation
Pla>4t;Natural'Com'munity Conservation Plan,or other apprgved
local 4i gional,or•state habitat conservation plan.) '
7 fl Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined to Sectton"4Q4.of the Clean Water Act
(ihdluaing;'but not lttnife3 to;marshes,veinal pools,etc), }{__
_ through direct removal,f lling,'hydrological interruption,6,f'
otherineans?
7
.J
1
J
`� CnY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 110 INITIAL STUDY ENVIR I 12�KLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Sup' ;ng Information Sources sources entially Potentially Less Than No
�mifcant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER #
Mitigation
Inco orated
aImplementation of the proposed project would result in long-term benefits to biological resources in San Luis Obispo Creek.
A biological reconnaissance and review of the California Natural Diversity Database were conducted for the proposed
project.
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
I was reviewed for special status species documented within the USGS San Luis Obispo (SLO) and Lopez Mountain
quadrangle maps (CDFG, 2002). These 7.5-mile quadrangles encompass the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The
I CNDDB inventories for the SLO and Lopez Mtn. quadrangles list 36 special status species: 13 animal and 24 plant species.
Of those special status species, 9 animal (Table 1) and 15 plant species (Table 2) occur within the Upper San Luis Obispo
JCreek watershed. Special status species that are state or federally listed are described in more detail below.
I California Red-Legged Frog
The California Red-Legged Frog(Rana aurora dratonii) was listed in May 1996 as federally threatened and is a California
species of special concern. California Red-Legged Frogs (CRLF) occur primarily in ponds or pools of intermittent stream
courses where pools remain long enough for breeding and development of young. Adult require dense, emergent or shoreline
I riparian vegetation closely associated with deep(greater than or equal to 2.25 feet), still, or slow-moving water(Jennings and
1 Hayes, 1994). Good water quality is a key habitat indicator, as is the absence of introduced bullfrogs and predatory fishes,
which predate larvae at higher levels than co-evolved predators. California Red-Legged Frogs can aestivate in small mammal
` burrows and moist leaf litter(Jennings and Hayes, 1994). Boulders, rocks and downed woody debris also provide cover and
moisture during the dry season. CRLF prefer lowland and foothill habitat in or near permanent sources of deep water with
dense, shrubby or emergent riparian vegetation. California red-legged frog eggs are usually found in ponds or in backwater
pools in creeks attached to emergent vegetation such as cattails (Typha sp.) and California tule(Scilpus californicus). Red-
legged frogs are often found in creeks and ponds with dense growths of woody riparian vegetation,especially willows (Salix
sp.).
There are four recorded occurrences within the Upper San Luis Obispo watershed.The closest occurrence to the dam removal
site is approximately 2 miles downstream in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo Creek. The other occurrences were documented
in tributaries to San Luis Obispo Creek, also downstream of the dam removal site. The frogs were found in sites with dense
willow cover,basking sites, undercut banks,and associated with vegetation such as sedges,rushes,and duckweed.
The CRLF is predicted to have a high potential to occur within the dam removal site due to recorded occurrences within the
project watershed. CRLF may move up to one mile up or down a drainage (USFWS, 1997), and their populations are
presumed extant through the Upper San Luis Obispo watershed.
Southwestern Pond Turtle
The Southwestern pond turtle(Clemmys marmorata pallida)is a California Species of Concern.It is a mostly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, and rivers with aquatic vegetation. They require basking sites and suitable upland habitat for egg-laying.
They over-winter in underground burrows in upland habitats. In the warmer months the pond turtle will bask on rocks and
logs near slow-moving streams. They are predicted to have low to moderate potential to occur within the project site. The
closest recorded occurrence is approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the project site at the north portal of Cuesta Tunnel—
north of Highway 101 at the railroad crossing.
1 California Coast Range Newt
The California Coast Range Newt (Taricha torosa torosa) is a California Species of Concern. The Coast Range Newt is a
diurnal salamander, and migrations to and from breeding sits may occasionally exceed 1000m(3300 ft), but few individuals
move that far. Coastal Newts frequent terrestrial habitats, but breed in pools, reservoirs, and slow-moving streams: This
1 species has been depleted by large-scale historical commercial exploitation coupled with the loss and degradation of stream
habitats(CDFG, 1997).The Coast Range Newt is also a Local Species of Concern for the City of San Luis Obispo.
California Tiger Salamander
The California Tiger Salamander (Ambystorna californiense) is a California Species of Concern.The one recorded occurrence
within the Upper San Luis Obispo watershed was documented in 1939 in the vicinity of Stenner Creek,a tributary of San Luis
Obispo Creek, approximately one mile north of San Luis Obispo. However, its presence is considered extirpated. They are
~ g A Crry OF SAN Luis OBIsPO
R■1 INfT1AL STUDY ENV"EIT6d14CKLIST 202
ATTACHMENT 2
--I Issues, Discussion and Sup, ng Information Sources Sources al'3 lyNo No Potentially Less Than
,..gmificam Significant '
Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
q [either
redicted to have little to no potential to occur in the project site.
JI irds
of the two special status bird species that have recorded occurrences within the project watershed is predicted to occur
the project site. The Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) prefers nesting sites along the
oad, lower floodplains of larger river systems. The one-recorded occurrence in the CNDDB dates from 1921 and is
presumed extirpated. Prairie Falcons (Falco mexicant s) prefer rolling foothills of mountainous areas and use cliff-walled
Jcanyons as nesting habitat. The closest recorded occurrence is within the Santa Lucia Range at Tinker Toy Ranch.
Central Coast Steelhead
J Central California Coast Steelhead Salmon (Onchorhyncus mykiss irideus) were listed as federally threatened in 1997.
Habitat loss, including loss of water flows, and the failure to protect the runs due to inadequate regulatory measures have been
the major, or at least the most conspicuous, causes of the decline of southern California steelhead. San Luis Obispo Creek
contains a viable population of southern steelhead and enhancement of this population is a high priority of the City of San
Luis Obispo. The primary objective of dam removal is the restoration of steelhead access to spawning and rearing habitat
currently blocked by the 4 in (13-ft) high dam. Steelhead have been documented in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed,
with the closest recorded occurrence within Cuesta County Park on San Luis Obispo Creek approximately 2.5 miles
y downstream of the project site.
Plants
The two special status plant species with recorded occurrences in the Upper San Luis Obispo watershed have little to no
potential to occur within the project site due to their restriction to serpentine soil habitat. The Chorro Creek bog thistle
(Cirsiran fontirrale var obispoense) is of extremely limited distribution, found only in perennial serpentine seeps and springs
in western San Luis Obispo County. The closest recorded occurrence was documented approximately 10 miles southwest of
the project site on the slopes above Miossi Creek, 0.5 miles north of Cuesta Canyon County Park. There.it was found in very
wet seeps on serpentine clay soils. Cuesta Pass Checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmdnii sp. anontala) populations are restricted to
a small area of San Luis Obispo County on West Cuesta Ridge, northwest of Cuesta Pass. The closest recorded occurrence
J was documented on West Cuesta Ridge, the northern watershed boundary for Upper San Luis Obispo Creek, approximately 3
miles northwest of the project site.
The California Natural Diversity Database lists 24 special status species within the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed.Of these,four are state-or federally-listed or species of concern and are predicted as likely to occur within
the project site: the California Red-Legged Frog, the Southwestern Pond Turtle, the California Coastal Newt and the
Central Coast Steelhead.Due to the nature of the project,the removal or partial removal of an existing dam,impacts
to these sensitive species will be beneficial in the long-term Dam removal (full or partial) will improve and increase
access to headwater habitat.
J The potential occurrence of these species in the project site requires the inclusion of mitigation measures to protect their
aquatic and riparian habitats during construction. Their habitat requirements must also be addressed under the changed
hydraulic conditions following construction. Typical mitigation procedures include daily pre-construction surveys to insure
the absence of special status species within work zones, clearing and re-locating any encountered protected species,
monitoring of construction activities, and inspection of design considerations (e.g. creation of new in-stream habitat via step
pools).
Though the potential presence of these three special status species requires careful mitigation of the project site and
project design, it also is a good indicator that the project has the potential to benefit many riparian and aquatic species.
Extended habitat and improved access to the upper reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek due to partial or full dam removal will
have positive impacts for the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed ecosystem.
a) On the basis of reconnaissance surveys conducted on-site, information on the local distribution of the plants, and the
lack of appropriate micro-habitats (e.g. serpentine based soils), it was concluded that there is little to no potential for
special-status plant species to occur on-site. Project development thus is predicted as unlikely to have impacts on
special-status Plant species.
Crry OF SAN Luis OBISPO 12INITIAL STUDY ENVIRON L Y ST 2002
TAC
Issues, Discussion and Suppol 'Information Sources Sources r ally Potcntially Less Than No
Ste scant Significant Significant Impar
Issues Unless Impact
ER #
Mitigation
IncorporatedInco orated
J Some special-status bird species, such as the Prairie Falcon, may have the potential to be occasional visitors,
migrants, or transients. The project would have n6 effect on the breeding success of any of these.species,although it
will result in a small reduction of foraging and/or roosting habitat available to them regionally. The proposed project
Jis expected to have a less than significant impact on these species that do not breed at the site.
Habitat for four of the special-status wildlife species, however, could potentially be affected by construction
activities at San Luis Obispo Creek.
• California Red-Legged Frog(Rana aurora draytonii), a federally threatened species
• Southwestern Pond Turtle(Clemmys marmorata pallida), a California Species of Concern
J • California Coastal Newt(Taricho torosa torosa),a California Species of Concern
• Central California Coast Steelhead Salmon (Onchorhyncus nzykiss irideus),a federally threatened species
1 The California Red-Legged Frog and the Southwestern Pond Turtle are predicted to have low to moderate potential
of occurrence in San Luis Obispo Creek. Additional surveys are required to determine if the species are present at
the project site California Coastal Newts, adults and eggs, have been observed at the project site. Though the
1 proposed project will have long-term benefits to riparian and aquatic habitat, short-term impacts on potential habitat
could occur during construction activities. Implementation of the mitigation measures proposed below would
minimize impacts on biological resources:
J BIO-1: Consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service(USFWS)and conduct surveys for special-status species prior to final construction design .
The City of San Luis Obispo would confer with the CDFG and the USFWS prior to final construction design for
restoration of the San Luis Obispo Creek channel to determine if the project site is potentially suitable habitat for the
California Red-Legged Frog. If CDFG and USFWS determine those areas are potentially suitable, the City would
conduct surveys to determine whether or not the species are present in the project site. USFWS protocols would be
used to determine presence of special status amphibians were present,the following BWs would be implemented:
BI0-2: Minimize areas of disturbance in riparian habitat and replant disturbed areas after construction
Construction practices should be used that minimize impacts on existing trees and riparian habitat along San Luis
Obispo Creek Construction equipment would use the existing maintenance and access road on the east side (left
bank) of the Creek. Implementation of the proposed project includes riparian re-vegetation of graded slopes.
Replacement plants would be monitored for establishment success for a minimum of three years by a qualified
biologist.
BI0-3: Limit in-channel construction activities to the summer low-precipitation period
To reduce the potential for impacts on aquatic species and water quality, in-channel construction activities should be
limited to the summer low-precipitation period (April 1 —October 15). Limiting construction activities to this period
would also reduce the risk of streambank erosion. After construction is completed, streambanks and adjacent areas
disturbed by construction activities would be stabilized to avoid increased erosion during subsequent storms and
runoff.
BI04: Ensure that turbidity does not substantially increase during construction
If the stream turbidity increases substantially during construction, mitigation measures must be implemented
immediately to reduce and maintain turbidity near natural levels. Potential mitigation measures include:
o minimizing disturbance of soils and streambed gravels, if present,
o constructing silt barrier immediately downstream of the construction site, and reducing the rate of
J _
�1 �`� CfTY OF SAN LUIS 08tSPo 13 INrr1AL STUDY ENvIRO4Cq4
r-46uST 2002
,J Issues, Discussion and SupporInformation Sources Sources Pr illy Potentially Less Than No
Si, am Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER #
Mitigation
Inco orated
construction activities
BIO-5: Implement a construction worker education program that includes an explanation of California Red.
Legged Frog natural history and identification,avoidance measures,and federal laws that protect the frog
1 11I0-6: Conduct work and maintenance during clear,dry daylight hours.Work shall not be conducted during
periods of rain when frogs tend to be more active
BI0-7: Construct a water conveyance/diversion system to de-water the creek during construction activity
BIO-8: Designate a fueling and vehicle maintenance area outside of the creek away from sensitive biological
Iresources
The measures stated above will reduce the impact to the special status amphibian species to less-than-significant.
Specific requirements for reducing impacts on stream habitats should be coordinated with CDFG during the
streambed alteration agreement process required under Sections 1601-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code.
b)To mitigate the short-term effects on existing habitat during construction, the following measures (as described in
detail above) would be implemented:
BIO-2: Minimize areas of disturbance in riparian habitat and replant disturbed areas after construction
' BI0-3 Limit in-channel construction activities to the summer low-precipitation period
IBIO-4: Ensure that turbidity does not substantially increase during construction
c)The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The
General Plan for the City of San Luis Obipso states:
• The City should manage its lake, creeks, wetlands, floodplain, and associated wetlands to achieve the
objective of maintaining and restoring natural conditions and fish and wildlife habitat (San Luis Obispo
General Plan,Land Use Element Policy 6.4.1:Creek and Wetlands Management Objectives)
• Restore degraded creeks to provide high quality habitat and to augment aesthetic resources,and to reverse the
historical trend of creek channelization and modification. (San Luis Obispo General Plan, Open Space
Element Policy 3.1.3:Creek Restoration)
The proposed project is in accordance with City policy.
d)Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of wildlife and fish in the San Luis
Obispo Creek watershed. Actually, the proposed project will partially remove an existing dam that is currently a
significant obstruction to movement within the channel. The primary objective of the project is to increase federally
threatened Central Coast Steelhead access to the upper reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek, increasing migratory
corridor lengths and access to spawning areas. Construction impacts to Steelhead habitat will be temporary and
beneficial in the long-term.
e)Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan.
f)Implementation of the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as
defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
1
CRY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONm6pruf H ffsT 2002
Ui1 �
ATTACHMENT 2
�f Issues, Discussion and Supp, g Information Sources Sources J,niauy Poieniially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
loco orated
Table 1. Special status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.Status
of all species is based on the CDFG Threatened and Endangered Animals List of California,January 2002.
% tt',t,� .�.`"a M. ti
ilka a r Y i .+ Mccorded axae' h nqU y k2c i4 3 w,>s rc
art 2 t^y� F S F f ,, t x t S) 1i4 .W @�; $I '� :t i sY. t .,••L na d�v.� y `�� �4
Gj
�a- X acDUrr(allC t , a nr + K( s
�tSPs,fyl,t'�
,p¢Cl¢5 L11n:IIQA x P ''t °' ,
"S .ecjesfLatln'? t8'r ; i r�''r „� 's'A' S'y x + "' r 1•
Atascadero June
Beetle. Polyphylla nubila 3 None Species of Concern None
California Red-Legged
Frog iRana aurora dra tonii 4 None Threatened S ecies of Concern
California Tiger Ambystonza
Salamander tali orniense 1 None Endangered* Species of Concern
California Coast Range observed in the
Newt Toricha torosa torosa field None None Species of Concern
Monarch Butterfly Danaus plexippus 1 None None None
Prairie Falcon Falco ntexicanus 2- None None Species of Concern
Southwestern Pond Clemnrys marmorata
Turtle pallida 7 None None Species of Concern
teelhead-Central Oncorhynchus nzykiss
California Coast irideus 2 Threatened S ecies of Concern
Western Yellow-Billed Coccyzus antericanus
Cuckoo occidentalis 1 =None
None None
*Federal listing applies to Santa Barbara County,California only
7
d
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INrrIAL STUDY ENvIROkW_&14 sT 20D2
J Issues, Discussion and Suppo Information Sources sources P ally Potentially Less Than No
S. ,cant Significant Significant Impact
J
ER # Issues Unless impact Mitigadon
Incorporated
Table 2.Special status plant species with potential to occur in the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. Status of
species is based on the CDFG Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants List (January,2002). California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) list designations are based on the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants(2002).
"'1 w>. •--+�-}.i r.yrwr tc, o-n a-a `{ ii' i'itk�u'Fn7El rry A. �'F Ffti
LL ��41 } i}-"{'_,,q��t � iYl' sW A: FhZ
�� StL �.1 � kkT '+.FA"a�t1' tt'i�`�1•r't .4�t�"��i7��r,°�+,.r� r,F° nq''.�dk°.�`�2 -:'�r`V'n s 4 sL ,,�` 4�i;rt3�tt,,.,°�,L*.''y'`,t��
�jF �,� i}y�• a��7"�'`.�•sv'���. �?,�`Ti-n..,r,� '�+� �,�f,�'�ZF�' .$�" t:r i �.� Te_•sr:� #}'<`'x�Y� /i,��tr,..,A:
-u.}� N• d �vR' te'j�` ' '� J. '3�%TTM�.„t�".. �h1+f.d.d T"h' ��, '�� ,�k�iha� 3%''X.{.'i. }, y"'^
eete$� tttm snrf"t cY f''Stx` <. .rte 1 �dtr�,},�pp'. liQ�4, ,W y�FS p ti Sw.tF..tSe fir: +t F�'�y"6 Y"r'Stl r .twRS'
N�e W �� S e`c�e Name" Cree"kWatefstied ' S to@ arsF �eraltl R -D code.*, CNPS**.
Blochman's Dudleya blochmaniae
Dudle a ssp. Blochmaniae. 1 None None 2-3-2 1B
Brewer's
S ineflower Chorizanthe breweri 13 None None 3-1-3 111
Cambria Morning Calystegia subacaulis
Glory ssp. E Isco alis 2 None None 3-2-3 1B
Chorro Creek Bog Cirsium fontinale var
Thistle obis oense 3 Endangered Endangered 3-2-3 1B
Cuesta Pass Sidalcea hickmanii
Checkerbloom ssp. Anomala 1 Rare None 3-2-3 IB
Delphinium parryi ssp.
J Dune Larkspur Blochmaniae 1 None None 3-2-3 1B
Chloragalum
omeridianum var
Dwarf Soa root minus 2 None None 2-2-3 113
Jones's La is La is jonesii 2 None None 3-2-3 113
Astragalus
didymocarpus var
Miles's Milk-vetch milesianus 3 None None 2-2-3 1B
Most Beautiful Streptanthus albidus
Jewel-Flower ssp. Peramoenus 4 None None .2-2-3 IB
Rayless Ragwort Senecio a hanactis 2 None None 3-2-1 2
San Benito
JFritillary ritillaria viridea 2 None None 2-2-3 IB
San Luis Mariposa Calochortus
Lily obis oensis 17 None None 2-2-3 1B
San Luis Obispo
Sedge Carex obis oensis 2 None None 2-2-3 1B
Santa Lucia A rcrostaphylos
Manzanita luciana G None None 2-2-3 1B
*R-E-D Code.CNPS uses a scheme that combines three complementary elements that are scored independently.These components are:
rarity,which addresses the extent of the plant,both in terms of numbers of individuals and the nature and extent of distribution;
endangerment,which embodies the perception of the plant's vulnerability to extinction for any reason;and distribution,which focuses on
the overall range of the plant. Each element in the code is divided into three classes or degrees of concern,represented by the number 1,2,
or 3. In each case, higher numbers indicate greater concern.
**CNPS Plant lists
IB:Plants rare,threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere;2: Rare or endangered in California,more common elsewhere
7 tel— CrrY OF SAN LUIS OaisPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIROCFft-C{IqICLIS r 2002
ATTA
Issues, Discussion and Supporl nformation Sources Sources Pr Ily Potentially LcssTT,an No
Sig. _.an[ Significant Stgnificam Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
IInco ora[ed
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Cause:a substantial adverse change in the significance of a __
historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) X
c) Directly or indirectly,destroyer unique paleontological resource __
or site or unique geoogic feature? X
d) Disturb any human femaing including those interred outside df
formal cemeteries? X
The proposed project would not adversely affect any known historic, archeological, or paleontological resources. No
known archeological or historic resources are located along San Luis Obispo Creek where construction or earth-moving
activities are proposed. However, riparian corridors were typically a desirable feature to prehistoric peoples for camps,
villages, and procurement areas. Although no cultural resources were detected or have been recorded from the project
site, it is still possible that subsurface archaeological materials may be present. It is remotely possible that such materials
could be encountered during site preparation and construction.
This potential impact is considered less than significant with mitigation because the City would take the following
measures to ensure that subsurface sites are not accidentally destroyed. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines
provides direction for dealing with archaeological sites that are found during construction. The following are mitigation
measures described in the CEQA guidelines:
ARCH-1: If archaeological sites (artifacts of stone, bone, or shell, glass, or ceramics) were found during
construction, the contractor would stop all work immediately within 100 feet of the find and consult a
qualified archaeologist for an immediate evaluation of the find. If the find were determined to be an
important archaeological resource, the City in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer
would develop appropriate treatment measures. Contingency funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow
recovery of an archaeological sample would be made available by the contractor. Construction work may
continue on other parts of the site while archaeological mitigation takes place.
ARCH-2: In the event that any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a
1 dedicated cemetery, no further excavation or disturbance will occur at the site or in any nearby area
J reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
to the coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered has been informed and has
determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required;and
o if remains are of Native American origin:
■ the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation
to the landowner or the person responsible for excavation work, for means of
treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any
associated grave goods as provided in California Public Resources Code Section
5097.98,
• or the Native American Heritage Commission has been unable to identify a
descendent or the descendant has failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours
after being notified by the commission.
6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? --X--
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the X
CrrY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRO C IST 2002
r
Issues, Discussion and Suppr I Information Sources sources r 'tally Potential y ss ran No
scant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER #
Mitigation
Incorporated
JState?
The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or recovery site. No impact
would occur.
7 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject:
a) Expose people of structures to potential substantial adverse
7 effect`s;including risk of loss, injury or death involving: X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most-recent Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist'for the area,or based on other X
7 substantial evidence of a known fault?
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? --X--
IIISeismtc related groun(I-fatluie,includtng liquefaction --X--
I� Landslides or mudf lows b) Result Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of;topsoil? X--
.c) Be-located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or.that
J would become.unstable as a result of they. roject,and potentially
resul(in.dnordffsitedandsltdes,lateral-s'0readi subsidence; . X
ltquefiiction,:or-coll
apse
d) .Be located on expansive soil as defined m Table 18 1=B of the
Uniform Building Code{d99 ),creating substantial risks tollfe . X--
>'
or.pro
J The project site is located in the southern portion of the Coast Range geomorphic province which extends from the Oregon
border to the Santa Ynez River.The province comprises a structurally complex northwest-southeast-trending set of ranges and
valleys and is characterized by similarly trending faults and fold axes. Lithologies are complex and range in age from
7 Mesozoic to Holocene periods. San Luis Obispo Creek has its headwaters in the Santa Lucia Range that separates the coastal
margin from the Salinas Valley. The Santa Lucia Range exemplifies the complex geology of the Coast Range and has a core
of Mesozoic rocks: Franciscan Complex in fault contact with Jurassic metavolcanics and serpentinite, Jura-Cretaceous
interbedded shaletclaystone with minor sandstone, and Cretaceous interbedded sandstone and shale. Mid- to late-Tertiary
marine sedimentary rocks and volcanic rocks overlie the Mesozoic rocks.
The soils in the Santa Lucia Range are generally residual soils and recent alluvial soils composed of clayey materials and are
expected to be moderately expansive.Residual soils developed in place on consolidated bedrock and are usually shallow(12-
18 inches deep) soils found on steep slopes with frequent rock outcrops. Most of these soils tend to be sandy or cobbly loams
with a moderate runoff potential.Recent alluvial soils are found in the stream and river bottoms and are mostly sand and silts.
7 Data for the liquefaction potential or project area soils are limited; however, the cohesive nature of much of the area soils is
expected to limit the potential for liquefaction in major earthquakes.
Although the region is seismically active, with a history of recorded earthquakes as far back as 1830, the occurrence of
ground rupture and offset is rare. There is no evidence that the proposed project is located on,or in the immediate vicinity of,
an identified active fault.
a) Implementation of the project would not increase the exposure to or risk of geologic hazards; the project would not
result in the creation of new development that would expose people or structures to seismic risks, including
liquefaction and landslides.
b) Implementation of the project would not result in long-term increases in erosion and soil loss. Slope set-back,riparian
planting, and biotechnical bank stabilization methods (components of the proposed project) would reduce long-term
erosion and soil loss.
JTemporary impacts from construction-related activities would result in disturbance of the ground surface.
��A CrrY Of SAN LUIS Oetspo 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRC, LIsT 2002
Issues, Discussion and Suppo Information Sourcessoar«s r it Pot enun ly ss tan o
S,�_.tcant Significant Significant Impact
ER # Issues Unless Impact
J Mitigation
Inco orated
Construction activities would expose disturbed and loosened soils to erosion from rainfall, water and wind. Soil
erosion is the process by which soil particles are removed from the land surface by wind, water, or gravity. Most
natural erosion occurs at slow rates; however, the rate increases when the land is cleared or altered and left disturbed.
Construction activities remove the protective cover of vegetation that could result in localized accelerated wind and
water erosion.
The proposed project includes riparian re-vegetation; however, short-term increases in soil erosion would occur due
to construction activities. The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce possible soil erosion
effects during construction to a less-than-significant effect:
GEO-1: Implement erosion and sediment control plan
The City of San Luis Obispo would require construction contractors to prepare an erosion and sediment
control plan that identifies BMPs to reduce erosion of disturbed soils during construction activities. The goal
of the plan would be to minimize wind and water erosion and transport of sediments during construction.The
plan would include measures for containing hazardous materials associated with construction equipment(e g.
diesel fuel, oils, solvents), and would describe the location and schedule for BMPs at each project site. The
construction engineer would prepare the plan before construction activities begin. The following measures
would be considered in the plans to minimize erosion and.sedimentation:
o Erosion control methods shall include: 1) temporary measures, such as flow diversion,
temporary ditches, and silt fencing; 2) permanent measures such as rock drop structures,
coir logs, erosion control fabrics, and straw wattles; and 3) revegetation measures,including
hydro-seeding and planting within the riparian zone
o Flows in the watercourse shall be contained or routed to bypass excavation activities
o Surface disturbance of soil and vegetation would be kept to a minimum; existing access and
maintenance roads would be used wherever feasible
o The project applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all
storm water quality protection measures,and for the implementation of such measures
I o Channel excavation work should be avoided during the wet season (normally October 15 to
April 1"`), and such work shall be stopped before pending storms, and all disturbed areas
stabilized using temporary protection measures
o Any stockpiled.soil would be placed and sloped so that it would not be subject to accelerated
erosion
o Discharge of all project-related materials and fluids into the creeks would be avoided to the
extent possible by using hay bales or silt fences, constructing berms or barriers around
construction materials,or installing geofabric in the area of disturbance
a o After ground-disturbing activities are complete, all graded or disturbed areas would be
t covered with protective material such as mulch, or re-seeded with native plant species. The
plan would include details regarding seeding material,fertilizer,and mulching
c-d)The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soils that are unstable or that would become unstable as a
result of the project. Soil expansion index measurements are required to determine the presence of expansive soils at
the project site. Even if expansive soils are present, the proposed project does not include the construction of any
Istructures that would cause substantial risk to life or property.
H. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would theproject:
a) ` Create a significint1aiard to the public or the`environrnent _}{__
Crry OF SAN LUIS Owspo 19 INrrlAL STUDY ENVIRON HMisT 2002
Al llatomiVIM I k
Issues, Discussion and Sup Ig Information Sources Sources mitally Potentially Lcss Than No
,nificant Significant Significant impact
Issues Unless Impact
1 ER #
Mitigation
Inc orated
J though the routine use,transport or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Createa significant hazard to the public or the environment
through seasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
1 involving the release of.hazardous materials into the X
environment?
c) trait hazardous emissions or handle.hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,substances, or waste'within one-quarter }{__
mile-of an existing or proposed school?
d) Expose,-:people or structures to existing sources of hazardous
1 emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a•list of•hazaidous
materials sites.compiled pursuant to Govemnment Code-Section
1 65962:3 and;as asesal(;it would creafe a sigritfica it}iazard`to X
the•public or'the environment?
f) ' For a project located within an airporfland'use plan,of within
1two miles'of a public airport,would the project result in a safety --X--
hazard for.the.people residing or working-in the.project area?
g), "Impair mplementationbf,oFphysicsllj,i"n'tdifere�witlt;'-the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X--
plari? '•
h) Expose people or structures to a sij;n>ficant,iiskrof lose,injury,
orileath involving wild]and fires,inCluding'where vildlands are
X-
adjacentlo urbanized.areas onwhere residents are. ntOrnixed
With wildlands?
a-b)The proposed project does not include any components that entail the routine transport, use,or disposal of hazardous
material. No releases of hazardous materials or substances would occur during the implementation of the proposed
project.
c-d)Potential impacts from temporary emissions due to construction equipment activities are addressed in Section 3,Air
Quality. Other hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste are not predicted to result from the implementation of the project. The project site is not located on a
hazardous materials site; it is not located within an airport land use plan area, or within two miles of a public use
airport; it is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response/evacuation plan.
h) Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to increase the risk of wildfires in the project vicinity.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject:
aj .•Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? X
b) Substantially deplete.groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a.lowering of the local
groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
c) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide __X__
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or X-
1 Crrr OF SAN Luis Oetspo 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIq� -�r A {`CKLIsT 2002
ATTACHMENT
Issues, Discussion and Suppol , Information Sources sources F ally Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER #1 Mitigation
loco orated
siltation onsite or offsite?
e) Substantially alter-the existing.drainage pattern of the site or
area in•aananner.thatwodld result-in substantial flooding onsite __X__
or offsite?
T f) Place•housirigwithina 100-yearflood hazard area as mapped on
a Federal'F1ood.Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood;bazard defined iah map?
1 g) Place within-a.100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows? X
h). Otherwisesubstantiall Ati adewater quality?
1 a) The proposed project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
b) The proposed project does not require additional water supplies that could deplete existing groundwater supplies.
c) The proposed project would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
d) The restoration project proposes to create new stable channel bed and banks along the existing channel centerline.
Excavation above the dam (to be partially removed under the proposed project) and engineered fill below the dam
will create a consistent slope throughout the project reach and allow Steelhead access to headwaters above the dam.
This channel restoration does change the existing drainage pattern through the site; however, Iona-term impacts are
predicted to be beneficial. Under existing conditions, the project reach downstream of the dam is experiencing
significant bank erosion. Erosion mechanisms generally consist of toe scour and geotechnical sloughing. The
proposed channel restoration will allow bank slopes to be re-graded to a slope of 3H:1 V, and engineered fill to be
_ placed downstream of the dam to bring channel bed slopes to a consistent grade. This will increase bank stability
throughout the lower segment,and, in the long-term,reduce erosion and/or siltation onsite
Proposed construction activities, including excavation and grading, would result in the disturbance of the ground
surface, temporarily increasing erosion rates and, potentially, sediment discharge rates to creeks. Effects on water
quality during construction,such as increased turbidity, are short-term and would not result in substantial decline in
existing water quality in the watershed. Channel modification activities would be followed by various re-vegetation/
bank stabilization techniques to minimize discharge of sediment-laden stormwater from entering the Creek. These
techniques include: bank slope erosion control blankets and riparian re-vegetation to stabilize the ground surface
after construction. This temporary impact is considered less-than-significant with mitigation. Mitigation procedures
discussed in previous sections would also be implemented to further reduce temporary construction impacts:
SI0-3: Limit in-channel construction activities to the summer low-precipitation period
B104: Ensure that turbidity does not substantially increase during construction
GEO-1:Implement erosion and sediment control plans
e) Implementation of the proposed project would not increase flooding potential onsite and off site, and would not
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff.
1 f-g)The proposed project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, and it would not place structures
within a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or re-direct flood flows. The gradient control low rock weirs
(0.3 in (1 ft) high) to be installed into the Creek serve to stabilize channel bed elevations and create scour pool
habitat for aquatic organisms.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING-Would theproject:
J
JN;J CRY OF SAN LUIS OBISPD 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONI[F.PaO.limiGC isT 2002
ATTACH , M7
Issues, Discussion and Suppc Information Sources so ces sally Potentially Less Than No
S._ ..tcanl Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
1 ER k
Mitigation
Inco orated
1 a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of __X__
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
b) Physically divide an established community? __X__
1 c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservationplans? --X--
1 The proposed project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Planning Area of the County of San Luis Obispo. The
area surrounding the project site is designated Rural Residential. This designation is applied to sites unsuitable for
agriculture with lots ranging from seven to 50 acres.
1 a)The proposed project would be implemented on existing public land owned by the City of San Luis Obispo; therefore,
it will not result in the division of an established community.
b)The proposed project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with
jurisdiction over the project.
1 c) Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural
community conservation plans.
1 11.NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise
Jeve(s as iiefint i by the Santniis"Obispo General Plan"Noise
Element or general noise leyels to excess of standards' X
establisted m the Noise Ordinance?
b}
As ubstantial terrlporaiy,penodic ..permanent increase iii
nm$ient noise levels in the project'yicmily above levels.exisfing —X--
J without the project?
c) Exposure of persons to ongenerati'on of.excessive groundborne
vibratiomor groundborne noise levels? --X--
d) For a_project located within an airport land-use plan,or within
two.mile.s of a-public airport or public use airport,would the
Fro ecf ezPo-s.e people residing ar w6ild rthgne roJe"ct area to g
excessi Ve itpise'levels?
1 The proposed project would not result in the generation of long-or short-term noise or the exposure of people to long-or
short-tens noise levels exceeding local noise thresholds. The proposed project would result only in the generation of
temporary noise,most likely lasting less than 2 months.No permanent impact would occur.
Temporary project-related noise would occur from use of construction equipment and construction activity. Noise levels
in construction areas would increase and noise-sensitive land uses, such as residences, located near the construction area
could be affected. The effect of increased noise levels would be diminished because most construction activity is
expected to take place during daylight hours when noise levels are generally the highest and people's tolerance is the
highest.
The proposed channel restoration project would not be located within an airport land use area or near a private airstrip.
The project does not involve locating noise-sensitive land uses near active airports.No impact would occur.
12. POPULATION AND ROUSING. Would the ro'ect:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other _X
infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing X•-
elsewhere?
�a CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 22 INITIAL STUDY E.NVIROCt�Sli CFl1�LlsT 2002
t 11
ATTACHMENT
Issues, Discussion and Supp g Information Sources Sources nuauy Potentially
Lessrhan No
significant Significant Significant Impact
1
ER # Issues Unless Impact Mitigation
Inc orated
The Upper San Luis Obispo Dam Removal Project would not induce substantial growth in the Cuesta Grade area or displace
housing units or people. All facets of the project take place on public land.
7 13. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
--X--
•b) Police protection?
--X--
•c) ` Schools?
•d) Parks? _X
e) Roads Roads and other transportation infrastructure?
'f1 Otherpublic facilities?
The project vicinity is primarily a rural, low population density area. The proposed project would not result in the increased
police or fire services, or involve the construction of facilities that would cause significant environmental impacts to schools,
parks,or other public services.
14.RECREATION. Would theproject:
)_ Increase the use of existrng neighborhood or rbgtonal parks or
other-reCreationti facilities such that substantialphysieal
;:`3eY novation of ttie faci]ity wouhi`occur or ba°acce7erafed� `r s;'
b) lnbludexecreational facilifies or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities,which might•have:an'adverse
_ h sical effect on the environment?
The proposed project does not include a recreational or public access component. Implementation of the project will not
affect recreational use or facilities in the project vicinity. Land uses within the project vicinity are primarily rural residential
and agricultural.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro ect
a),, CauSezn tncrea'se antraffic wlttch�s+substarit tn�reliCton to tier:
�.. •C _X_
exr'sttngtraffit'lbadandcapacgyoffhestrebt*sten3n r H z
b) Ekzceed;.etther ridt+nt3ual or cumulatively,a
legel of$eiwice Y,
standard rstablished bythe:ootinty congesdtinmanagement
agency..ffor'designatedxoads and highways?
gid) Substantially increase hazards due to design'feattrres(e g sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or inoompauble,uses-(e g __X__
farm equipment)?
` d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Jl e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? —X
--X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation(e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? __X--
g) Conflict with the with'San Luis Obispo County Airport Land
Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, __X__
or a chane in air trafficpatterns?
a-b)The proposed project would not cause long-term increased traffic loads, nor would it cause a long-term level-of-
service standard to be exceeded. During construction, truck traffic to and from the site will increase; however, these
traffic impacts will be temporary and therefore less-than-significant. Mitigations concerning equipment emissions are
taA CtrY OF SAN Luis OBispo 23GIT
INRIAL STUDY ENYIRO LIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Suppc 1 Information Sources Sources iauy P t u. n _Zt No
:. .,cam Significant Signi ficam Impact
ER I Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
described in Section 3, Air Quality.
J c-d)The proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, increased hazards because of design features
J or incompatible use,inadequate emergency access or inadequate parking capacity.
f)The proposed project would not conflict with adopted programs supporting alternative transportation.
1 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect:
a) Exceed wastewater`reaiment:rgquiretnents'of the applicable
Regional Witei ty`• X
g Qiiali Contrd]$oard?
b) Require orrresult in the'construction or expansion of new water
treatment,Waste.wat1.er„treatme1.'7nti or.stonh drainage facilities,the
construction of w"tiich coup cause`significant environmental X”
.1 effects?
•1 c). .Have sufficient w'ater:supplies:available:to.serve the project
from existing emgllements andzresouices,onare new and }{__
expanded 4aterlesourecsateeded?.
:d) Result in a determinatron;by the wastewater tceatment;provider
which:serva�ormay serve the-pro3ect that tt has adequate
capacity to serve.fhe pro�eof s projected d'i Mand and°addition to X
the providers extsttng commitment.
e):; Be served by a Iatidfll avith"suffictentpermitted capacityYo
accommodate the;project's soltd waste disposal needs? X-
f3 'Comply with federal state,and Inca]statutes and regulations
.related#osolid waste-?_ £.�;: .._<. .:: . . .',,:,,'• :_ :,: .. :: X--
1 The proposed channel restoration project would not increase demand for wastewater, water supply, or solid waste
facilities. It would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board.
17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) <Does the^pro3eet hale thepotentialito,degrade he quality.of.the
:.environment,s I -.N ";' ,,I ,educe,the fiab1if�af vfx ish nr wtldhfe
�..,specie ,causes fishyorvav}ldltfepopulafion io,$rop below.self
susta>mrig ieveis;tl}teaten to eliminate a ]an�Aiaruma`1 :,
! 1 ` i} a e StY r i
'commuruty,teducP tha$nuaibErt)rtrestnetatklen �eoaarenr
endangered,plant;orlanmtal orh
mina[ mgot#ant examples ,
the ma or enpi3saf G iltf iota histbr dr rehtsto 7�'
b) Does the project have impacts that ai e indidually llmiteii but'.
cumulayvely considerable?:'('tCumulatively considerable"
means that thedricrementsl effects bf a proleet are considerable'
when viewed in connectionwith the effects,of ihelpast projects, X
1 the effects of other current projects;and the effects of probable
futureprojects)
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or X__
indirectly?
Eheproposed project
a) Though the proposed project has the potential, in the short-term, to have significant impacts on biological resources,
geology/soils resources, and hydrology/water quality, implementation of mitigation measures identified above will
1 t.� CITY OF SAN Luis Owspo 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRO C IST 2002
"WVint
RCHMENT 2
�- Sources Poa.__.�Ily Potentially Less Thanfues,
Discussion and Supportly Information Sources Significant Significant Signifcantt
Issues Unless Impact
ER # Mitigation
Inco orated
ensure that the quality of the environment will not be degraded. The project components,including biotechnical bank
stabilization, the creation of new stable low-flow channel bed and banks, rock weir installation and riparian
revegetation, will increase the quality of the environment in the project area and prevent the potential for future bank
erosion.
1 b) Cumulative impacts from the proposed project will be beneficial in the long-term. Partial removal of the dam would
ensure that the historic gradient control functionality of the dam would be retained while providing greater migratory
access for the federally threatened Central Coast Steelhead to headwaters habitat suitable for rearing and spawning.
Accordingly, cumulative impacts to watershed aquatic habitat quantity and quality and water quality conditions will
most likely be positive.
c) The development of the project as proposed would not cause any substantial adverse environmental effects on human
beings either directly or indirectly. All potentially adverse environmental impacts which may be associated with the
proposed project will be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the implementation of the mitigation
measures identified above.
J
J
J
7
7
CrrY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIROLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Supl ig Information Sources Sources `ntially f%1.fAMAW01a No
,,ificant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
7 ER # Mitigation
Inca orated
18. EARLIER ANALYSES.
�t •Earlier.analysis may be,used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed`in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should,identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used.-identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
J b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based oni the earlier analysis.
] c) Mitigation measures. :For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which:wereJncorparated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which:they address site-specific
Conditions of 1h6 prOject., -•
19. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. City of San Luis Obispo. 1994. San Luis Obispo General Plan.Community Development Department.August
1994.
2. State of California Department of Transportation. 1995. Route 101/Cuesta Grade Improvements Project Draft
Environmental Impact Statement/Report. San Luis Obispo County,CA. 5-SLO-101,P.M. 32.3/35.5
3. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997. Guidance on site assessment and field surveys for California Red-Legged
Frogs.February 1997.Ventura,California.
] 4. California Department of Fish and Game,2002.California Natural Diversity Database. Special status wildlife and
(ant species search results for the San Luis Obispo and Lopez Mountain quadrangles,California.
5. California Department of Fish and Game, 1994.Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California,
] Coast Range Newt.
6. Jennings,M.R. and M.P.Hayes, 1994.Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California
Department of Fish and Game,Sacramento.
7 Attachments:
Project Description for Upper San Luis Obispo Dam Removal Project
_� �J CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 1NrrIAL STUDY ENVIRD.yAJAT f LiECKLIST 2002
ATTACHMENT 2
1 Upper San Luis Obispo Creek Danz Removal Project
J
J
JPrepared for (and currently under review by):
J City of San Luis Obispo
J 900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
J
Prepared By:
Questa Engineering Corporation
1220 Brickyard Cove Road, Suite 206
® P. O. Box 70356
Point Richmond, California 94807
(510) 236-6114
Job# 20137
1
April 12, 2002
r
1
I
J
J
a
C11-30
Upper San Luis Obi. „Creek Dam RTTA� MENT 2
City of San Luis Obispo
NATURE OF ACTIVITY
Introduction
The upper San Luis Obispo Creek dam is a non-functional water diversion structure built
by the City of San Luis Obispo in the late 1800's as part of the city's original water
supply. This facility captured water from San Luis Obispo Creek and diverted it into a
pipeline, which conducted that water plus water from the nearby Hansen and Gularte
Creeks to reservoirs nearer the City. This system was abandoned in the 1950's and has
not functioned since that time.
San Luis Obispo Creek contains a viable population of southern steelhead (077corhynchus
mykiss irideus) and enhancement of this population is a high priority locally. While San
Luis Obispo Creek is relatively unobstructed to fish passage for much of its length, its
upper reaches are blocked by an abandoned water supply dam located approximately 550
m (0.3 miles) upstream of the Old Stagecoach Road bridge. The reservoir behind the 4m
(13 ft) high dam is filled with sediment. The dam constitutes a significant barrier to the
movement of steelhead and other native fishes in this area.
The purpose of the proposed project is to:
1) restore steelhead access to the upper reaches of San Luis Obispo Creek
2) create stable channel bed and banks
3) improve in-stream habitat
Site Description
The site is located above the Creek's crossing of Highway 101 near the base of Cuesta
Grade, at the northern end of the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed (Figure 1). The
project has a watershed area of approximately 6.5 sq. km (2.5 sq. miles). About 1.3 km
(0.8 miles) of U.S.G.S. blue line (perennial) stream are located above the site, in addition
to other intermittent tributary streams flowing into the Creek.
To the west of the channel, a steep hill slope abuts the dam. To the east, the slopes are
much flatter_ The stream channel downstream of the dam is characterized by significant
bank erosion and undercut banks, while the grade control provided by the dam has
prevented significant bank erosion from forming upstream of the structure. Vegetation at
the site is primarily characterized by oak woodland. However, some riparian trees are
present near the stream channel, especially upstream of the dam, where several large
willow and cottonwood trees have colonized the sediment stored in the old reservoir.
Two tributaries enter San Luis Obispo Creek just above the dam. The larger enters from
the east about 25 m (82 ft) above the dam. If the dam were removed, flow in this tributary
would be large enough that grade control would have to be provided to prevent the
tributary from eroding upstream and threatening Old Stagecoach Road. The smaller
tributary is actually a gully that has been stabilized by the dam. Some bedrock is present
BLOCK 18: NATURE OF ACTIVITY C11-31 t
ATTACHMENT 2
_. Upper San Luis Obi_, .-Creek Dam Removal Project
City of San Luis Obispo
within the gully; however, if the dam were entirely removed, the gully would continue to
degrade, likely destabilizing a large hillslope area to the west of the dam.
Project Description
The proposed project would provide fish passage past the existing dam structure through
the partial removal of the dam (Figure 2). The project also entails the construction of a
new channel with the installation of low rock weir drop structures to replace the grade
stabilizing function of the existing dam. The total length of affected stream channel
within the grading footprint would be approximately 105 m (345 ft). The bottom width
of the new channel would be about 3 m (10 ft). About 130 m (425 ft) of San Luis Obispo
Creek and about 35 m (115 ft) of an un-named tributary would be temporarily dewatered
during project construction. Construction access would be from the west, as shown in
Figure 3.
Partial Dam Removal
• A 6-meter (20-ft) wide, 1.6 m (5.2 ft) deep notch within the center section of the
dam would be removed. Most of the structure would be retained to provide long-
term stability. (See Cross Section B-B' in Figure 2).
• The maximum height of the cut slope would occur immediately upstream of the
dam and would be just under 4 m (13 ft).
• The remaining dam section would form a gradient control drop structure.
Rock Weir Gradient Control
• The new channel would be stabilized by low rock weir structures with a drop
height of 0.3 in (1 ft), each 6.0 m (20 ft) apart. Eighteen rock,weirs would be
installed in the main channel, and 3 smaller rock weirs would be installed in the
tributary.
• The structures would be constructed of large rocks placed across the channel in a
"U' shape, with the open end of the "U' facing downstream. They would focus
flow into the center of the stream channel, creating valuable pool habitat and
providing a resting place for migrating fish and sufficient water depth for them to
accelerate prior to jumping to the next pool.
• Anchor rocks would be placed below the weir structures and at their edges to
prevent scour from causing their failure.
• The weirs would be keyed into the streambank or anchored to bedrock using
metal cable.
Rock weirs are generally accepted to have benefits in addition to the fish passage that
they provide. They create pool habitat at the bottom of each weir, and increase the natural
sorting of stream gravels by creating diverse hydraulic conditions. Also, the rock weirs
can help prevent streambank erosion because they focus flow energy into the center of
the channel.
Cut and Fill
• The project footprint area is approximately 1000 square meters.
BLOCK 18: NATURE OF ACTIVITY C11-32 2
ATTACHMENT 2
Upper San Luis Ob., ,Creek Dam Removal Project
City of San Luis Obispo
• Approximately 400 cubic meters of material would be excavated from the channel
upstream of the dam. This material would be placed as engineered fill in the
channel downstream of the dam. While the cut and fill calculations done as part of
the project design show fairly close balance, it is possible that some additional
material may need to be imported from off-site for fill below the dam. An
additional approximately 430 cubic meters of 1-2 ton rock would be placed in the
stream both upstream and downstream of the dam to create the low rock weir drop
structures.
e The proposed project directly impacts approximately 105 m (345 ft) of the
existing channel.
Biotechnical Bank Stabilization
Vegetation on the banks and bed of the existing channel would be removed as part of the
construction process. Banks would be reconstructed at an angle not steeper than 3H:IV
(except 2H:1 V where bank heights would be less that 1.5 m), but existing stable banks
steeper than this angle may be retained. New slopes would be seeded with a mix of
erosion control grasses and lined with biodegradable erosion control blankets. Coir logs
would be placed at the toe-of-slope to prevent erosion of the toe by normal winter-time
flows. Young willow poles would be staked into the erosion control fabric and through
the coir logs. Over 2-3 growing periods, the willows would provide rooted bank
stabilization for the new channel banks.
Tree Removal
Two smaller (0.3 m (1 ft) diameter) bay trees would be removed as a result of this
project. Grading of banks may require shallow excavation under the dripline of
approximately 5 other trees. The large (1 m (3.3 ft) diameter) cottonwood at station 1+24
would be preserved.
Planting Plan
The purpose of the planting plan is to replace any vegetation that will be removed as part
of the proposed project. This dam removal project is essentially an enhancement project,
and long-term beneficial impacts to riparian and aquatic habitats are expected. Upland
trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Four bay laurel trees will be planted above the dam to
replace the two that will be removed. Planting will also be done at the bank toes of the
new channel. California blackberry, black cottonwoods, arroyo willows and American
dogwood will be planted in coir logs and at mid- to low-banks within the creekside zone.
A standard erosion control seed mix will be applied to all newly graded surfaces. Table 1
shows the proposed planting palette for the project. Where possible, cottonwoods and
willows to be planted will be collected on-site. Due to the enhancement nature of this
project, the planting should not be considered a mitigation measure. The planting is
intended to hasten the process by which long-term riparian species establish themselves
at the site.
BLOCK IS: NATURE OF ACTIVITY C11-33 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Upper San Luis Obisl,. ,Creek Dam Removal Project
City of San Luis Obispo
Below the dam, the project entails mostly channel fill. No trees will be removed here.
Minimal riparian vegetation occurs below the dam due to incised and shaded conditions
of the channel. Since all trees below the dam will be preserved, and since only minimal
vegetation exists there now, new planting below the dam would not be necessary if the
goal of the project were only to replace lost vegetation. However, to help speed
vegetation colonization, the coir logs at the toe will still be planted with the mix of
species described above. Because banktop trees will likely continue to shade the site, it is
anticipated that toe plantings below the dam will have a lower success rate than along
sunnier areas above the dam. Certain species will have higher success rates than others,
so the best way to ensure eventual vegetation establishment will be to plant the mix of
species, with the understanding that those not well suited will not survive. It should not
be necessary to replace unsuited species that don't survive, because the plantings that do
survive will represent much better riparian vegetation than the current bare channel
banks. The proposed project will result in improved fish passage and greater quality of
habitat for aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.
BLOCK IS: NATURE OF ACTIVITY Cll-34 4
ATTACHMENT 2
x �
1
o w p
II I� II
A
a
o W o 0 0 0 o w ¢ w ¢
0 0 0 ^cl
o Q ¢ w ¢
a
A Cc V') o oo o� o C�
W a 0 0 �' H
Y
av w
0 0
3
a w
a
c�
v�
t~
s
co
c
Ln
U
.. v
c
g
00
S o
0
Q o U L o � �
o.
c•� 3 3 u e"a s
z ° c t3
tz Cq .i Cti •o
c o 3 •o c o Lay u
u � o V h L > WO O
C4Q2 u uC,� cc
Q
1-35
0YL IL.
1 1. 1 ♦ \ 1 I J I e I W
LL
!
�rc `_7;!'R+.-• J , .}..-x+.Z t rte` • f„+.�.c J'.lM^ 1. —T� ' r.� �"i � '— '` O_ U) W V
�t� r�`)�7 l� , :Ye• �---.tl;"LJ �- � J {}�4 }1 t . ' j +°sY`il 'ter ,i l� "'�
F 1 I �x f" ,cJ f ._ 1 1 , } , _ 1 1r .rt `3•� y� c'A r qL �/ !y dVcyr rl. \ ���'+.� f
.''40r I f 1 ./ t ti ( l' 1 �: 1 .. �L{.5 •A� —Y yr LVLT e: gyp/
{ Y �[n Z+� t < :1 ^' J` f y t .H i '•1}•',�{�, a}� 1/`I I p LL LL
�Y�/�'/ (a IL
LE
/! I • - ,. I'\ 1'•l i k+.F },^.1�F �-!i'" •'ttA: n;{• A' O
-1 Y,'�i- 'f��'!� 1., ! r3 . + i ! r} r tt < t xvG�r A"RW w f
�`r1 ! \ .t ¢I S' ♦ u' r� ,p i'•Y'�1rVP11 4 e rr 1 .a1 j1Y+ If.
i rT # F'4 y3•'pLv o\ .wff"*'�. rl�i w-. i� I V p
thL t !F i ��tlU '4+w ?`G(•filo G� !t''y lyy ' t ,4ft..` ♦ " \ �JYYI _: _
W W J
•r_ S ,� e / .Jr„K�,1!' x !'S! •. '2z7' �f� a 3A_1'' t� r' j••'
44..•r s-t/ J{ '({ ! <' ik '_ '?y' E:trt�K,.'. '> 'e aEf' ; -k"'+ !� _ JI ? ' •".*.I '� It
1�'at na JJ . / I �' ! ` +`. t •'a ar <• / tS�a: �..sr. ,.s r , p W li Z
IL Cl)
1•} �•F , • � 1 \ � �X;r f��S.,..r 1I- ��,F' 4 1• '. H Y I il � 0
- , 1
r'; * \�AL(.� •{1�+`k �i:'e. Y'D'�. yt"��'4i r•y r 11"' j.7��'j�'t l' � �f-, \
f `� .�� f -�t: r �' i l. . .,, (' � +5#.'�e.+4'�F�'' �`'�; e��V•� ..yt•+�*t� �,��.°s� }1 Y-
�a�+ 11 ��. �] � �, ; 1 � � l�1:� �1 fYY6tc.. Fs�vy.. f �H�•�� R r 1
yLj
- ff. �
x
�;� � .»,..`.� ,.�C t' < +�.Y � t •�;dfi� �„� �'':
v _
T..T• J. .y �.y S �� I. ,�"��r�� w r y- " FSM
.r 4 t .• r � \s rp `� > �'. 1 a -�,•�.� 'iii I x[. ,� ,{ x 'i
S.� .`.+ e tt } _ �_ J 9 rt r:c_ ••fr'� ' i FF,,,_ v'%�xFpp Sr+',�i^i.i K' t �'!bx �.NYM `?''F"��I �'I 1
1 ( �. i + •L3T'•p•A r\; 2r 1.
'+! -v-7akK' ,F+' 1 a\ '�j` "S Y,
', i� � �">•� v Ar'f; 5 d s r7 t , \ 's�'1,�„��Y K `� �• C�., Q �T
N (r'��•�1
.1S r t 1 ni:L• � lir 7. i �• ' .TI }� r� 4 L
(n A �
"r,y '1YNi(' d r rF + , ra I +1.. 1l .t;Y bl r 1 r
r✓ y %a. ; 1 •,J e1 lf..a�,rl�'$ 1 l' ; FF"rr .
j p
T'= „ t ;! •..�.. [a-•'.+ r..• r.✓ ^F r t� ,.n�T s '�s '4 f'_r. a�. �l, �... r.
'I71 �.�2c\'1 �r .- �. - }4.r•t� f 1 4� �, tr y F/--;". 'F'3 �•TI� � ,.. � / ..
t.}' \ b + '/ } �� 1,• 1' '/ : .Fil: 'd ' - r Ik !e f� f
y
.•l C \ +£t'}p. ♦'!+<�y y !.x'[ F 1 j — x �7 r Ir l t ., j x 111 I rF,r `f .1.
kk-
( T
0
•rt.`,. ,til
`!: • : : ' to
• .w
-
� C
yy
All
r`y
•O 'may
• •$ � Y
� , Y
1
A
triµ t 1
t,
MIACHMENT 2
LU
LU
IL
LLJ
allB ul
ra
0 m sp, A I I LIJ
W.w
al
00
0070 mz
00 E wo
0 0 uwu Z.— 0
w z
u0 R
eS
0
0 5
0
jai,;
A
Jig.,
I
3g Aae CL
0
Io:
0.
EARTHEN DIVERSION `\ v
STRUCTURE \�J Fi
i LIMIT OF m
r WORK y
)
yO
I f+ f
+ a A
.. I DIVERT FLOW AT
® 'I CULVERT
'• CONSTRUCTION
ACCESS/
ESS STAGING AREA
�fEMPORARYACC
,.• (Kn P,. .:f ROAD CONUCTED
AT EXISTING
GRADE',
+.........
�•Sjr II '.�.:
I ll
\ � I1I •�
CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY ACCESS,\�;. <;.� "..�
ROAD 8Y PLACING FILL WITHIN•, -_ ^?3;, \ CHANNEL DIVERSIO
CHANNS4 � '„ ;'#. \\ \IN TWO 15 CM(6 1N) IAM
;� ,'1�;•` \ FLEXIBLE PLASTIC D INPI ES,
\\ 4URIED THROUGH GING AREA
'1 ' .�. \\ \
T �\ AND ACROSS ACCES RO S.
GRAY SHADING REPRESENTS
�• j i EXTENT OF ORDINARY HIGH
WATER WITHIN GRADING FOOTPRINT,
BASED ON FIELD OBSERVATIONS
PROJECT NOTES: MADE WINTER 2002.
~'-
TOTAL AREA WITHIN PROJECT FOOTPRINT t "
BELOW ORDINARY HIGH WATER: •�
690 SO M j •.'
TOTAL PROJECT CUT VOLUME(ABOVE DAM):
400 CUM
TOTAL FILL VOLUME:
830 CU M(SOME OF THIS IS
IMPORTED MATERIAL)
TOTAL FILL VOLUME BELOW ORDINARY HIGH WATER: -
APPROX 200 CU.M. 10
FOOTPRINT LENGTH ALONG CHANNEL: ' ,
LIMIT F
APPROXIMATELY 105 ��f WORK
LENGTH OF CHANNEL TO BE TEMPORARILY DEWATERED:
130 M MAIN CHANNEL.35 M TRIBUTARY OI+
D"" 0410202 MOBILIZATION PLAN FIGURE
"" W.L.
Apprm W.- UPPER DAM REMOVAL PRO&
D.Q.Na 20137_DESIGN.DWG SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
.,vw+n�w..ram.rar��,mn®raw•a o+.+nr