+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject...

Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject...

Date post: 27-May-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 5 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
68
Project Description for CDP waiver application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD Page 1 of 28 Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Project 2010 Figure 1. Vicinity Map: Zone 1/1A Flood Control District (black outline), located at the base of the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (red outline).
Transcript
Page 1: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP waiver application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 1 of 28

Project Description for

Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application

Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management Project 2010

Figure 1. Vicinity Map: Zone 1/1A Flood Control District (black outline), located at the

base of the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed (red outline).

Page 2: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 2 of 28

Contents I. Update: Summary of progress and events related to the Arroyo Grande Creek (“AG Creek”)

flood control channel since the 2009 CDP Waiver 3-09-027-W. II. Results of 2009 AG Creek flood control channel vegetation management program.

Description and photographs of 2009 AG Creek vegetation management work. III. The Big Picture: Background and history of AG Creek flood control channel. IV. 2010 Project Description: Complete description of the proposed 2010 vegetation

management project. V. Summary of Request to the Coastal Commission: CDP Waiver for 2010. VI. Literature Cited Exhibit A: Aerial photo of Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel with landmark

labels Exhibit B: CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement Exhibit C: Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management: A Photo

Series Exhibit D: Map of 2009 Red-legged Frog observations in the AG Creek Flood Control

Channel

Page 3: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 3 of 28

I. Update since 2009 CDP Waiver 3-09-027-W

Events of the past year related to the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel

This section provides a summary of AG Creek watershed-related activities that have taken place in the past year, since Coastal Commission approval of the 2009 CDP Waiver application (3-09-027-W). Long-term plan for management of the AG Creek flood control channel and draft EIR completed

A major milestone was reached in 2010, when San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“SLO County”) completed the Waterway Management Program (WMP) for the Zone 1/1A flood control channel, as well as the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR and WMP are available for download from the County’s website www.SLOCountyWater.org; follow links to Zone 1/1A. The comment period for the draft EIR closed on July 19, 2010; certification by the SLO County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the SLO County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, at their meeting on August 17, 2010.

The environmental permitting process for completion of activities described in the WMP will begin as soon as the EIR for the WMP is certified. Regulatory agencies included in the permitting process will include at a minimum the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, NOAA/NMFS, SLO County, and RWQCB. SLO County continues to pursue grant funding to supplement from Zone 1/1A property assessments so that WMP projects can be fully implemented as soon as possible once the permitting process is completed, thereby improving flood protection for adjacent landowners. Watershed approach: the Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”)

In 2008, the SLO County Board of Supervisors adopted the "Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding". The City of Arroyo Grande first began drafting the AG Creek MOU in 2005, in collaboration with the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee Task Force, with the goal of bringing together all the major stakeholders in the watershed to facilitate communication and collaboration on projects and policies for the “maintenance, protection, and enhancement of the Arroyo Grande Watershed and the creeks within the Watershed.” The City worked with SLO County and other proposed signatories through a number of drafts until the final wording was developed. In addition to facilitating inter-organization cooperation, it is expected that having a completed, signed MOU for the AG watershed should prove a helpful tool in obtaining grant funding for future watershed improvement projects, as funding agencies are increasingly anxious to see evidence of broad stakeholder support for protecting watersheds. Now that SLO County has signed the MOU, the City of AG, the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District (CSLRCD), and local non-profit Central Coast Salmon Enhancement (CCSE) are taking the lead on obtaining the remaining signatures. The NRCS signed the MOU in spring 2010, and a “kick-off” meeting for the AG MOU signatory group is scheduled for July 28, 2010. The meeting’s agenda will include developing a list of action items for the coming year. Additional AG Creek Watershed work in progress:

Page 4: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 4 of 28

Quarterly fisheries surveys: The California Department of Parks and Recreation continues to

conduct quarterly fisheries surveys in the lagoon and immediately adjacent upstream portion of AG Creek.

Habitat Conservation Plan: The County continues to hold regular conference calls with federal environmental permitting agencies to move forward on finalizing the draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Lopez Dam, which captures flow from the upper Arroyo Grande Creek watershed. The HCP is being developed by the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to address the volume and timing of in-stream flow releases from Lopez Dam into Arroyo Grande Creek, working with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to address issues concerning California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) and Tidewater Goby, and with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding issues affecting steelhead trout. The County is working with various models and triggers/parameters to find an agreeable steelhead passage flow rate that will satisfy NMFS' requirements, while still allowing the County to operate the dam for recreational purposes, drinking water releases, and releases for downstream agricultural stakeholders.

Fish passage barrier removal: CCSE, through a grant from CDFG, continues overseeing redesign of the stream gage on Arroyo Grande Creek so that the gage no longer poses a barrier to steelhead trout migration. A draft design was reviewed by the Project Team in early 2008, and recommendations given to the engineers for further refinement. Progress was slowed during 2009-2010 due to the state freeze on grant-funded projects; it is hoped that funding will be renewed in the near future. However, project design is now at 100% with agency comments nearly complete, awaiting CDFG sign-off. CCSE is completing permit applications, and applying for implementation funding.

Creek clean-up. CCSE coordinated a Creek Clean-Up Day for volunteers again in 2009. While trash is relatively less than in previous years, likely as a result of installation of levee gates by SLO County in 2008-2009, homeless encampments periodically contribute to temporary trash events.

Floodplain restoration and sediment management projects. o In 2009, CSLRCD partnered with CCSE to contract with the City of Arroyo Grande

for completion of a conceptual design to remediate a headcut and restore functional stream geomorphology to a residential segment of Tally Ho Creek, a tributary to Arroyo Grande Creek. The design was completed in June 2010, and the next steps will be obtaining funding to support the permitting and implementation process.

o CSLRCD is awaiting review on a DWR Urban Stream Restoration Program (USRP) Grant application submitted in fall 2008 to obtain match funds for easement acquisition and project implementation of a floodplain restoration/sediment detention project on 12 acres of creekside property in the City of Arroyo Grande; this grant program had been delayed due to the state funding freeze, but the DWR USRP plans to proceed with review of project applications this fall. Both of these potential projects had been identified in the 2006 “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study,” as priority opportunities for reducing introduction of excess sediment to the Zone 1/1A flood control channel.

II. AG Creek flood control channel vegetation management: Results of 2009 program

Page 5: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 5 of 28

Beginning in 2005, the Coastal Commission has each year granted Coastal Development Permit Waivers for selective vegetation thinning in the coastal zone portion of the AG Creek flood control channel (Waivers #3-05-063-W, 3-06-049-W, 3-07-026-W, 3-08-28-W, and 3-09-027-W). With funding from SLO County and the Flood Control District Zone 1/1A, the CSLRCD has coordinated the vegetation thinning work, contracting with California Conservation Corps (CCCs) for assistance from their crews, and followed the specified guidelines. This approach includes maintaining a vegetative buffer of trees to shade the creek, while trimming the lower tree branches and thinning dense willow stands to lessen resistance to high flows and decrease the risk of debris jams.

The current approach to vegetation management was first implemented in 2004 in the areas

immediately adjacent to 22nd Street and UPRR Bridges. Work extended through more areas of the flood control channel in 2005 and 2006. However, 2007 was the first year that the CCCs were able to complete work on all reaches of the flood control channel, including the original jurisdiction coastal zone, because (1) passage of Proposition 218 in 2006 provided the necessary funding; (2) with an identified funding source, CCCs were able to begin work earlier in the summer, so that even though crews were periodically called away for fire duty, they had sufficient time to complete work before the October 31 end date; and (3) residual benefits of work completed during the 2005 and 2006 reduced the required level of effort, so crews could complete the work more quickly. In 2008 and 2009, vegetation work in the original jurisdiction coastal zone was also conducted following receipt of Coastal Commission CDP waivers. Because of residual benefits of vegetation work performed over the previous years, relatively low creek water levels and consequently fewer CRLF, work has been less time-intensive than in previous years. During 2009, work was completed throughout the project area, with the exception of those areas with buffer zones established for CRLF and nesting birds. Work completed significantly reduced vegetative roughness in the coastal zone reaches of the channel, increasing capacity to handle high flow events, while maintaining stream canopy cover and protecting aquatic habitat.

The three photos below (Figures 2-4) briefly illustrate the pattern of vegetation management work in the coastal zone during the last few years. The photo below (Figure 2), taken in May 2009 near Creek Road, shows willows that have leafed out following winter dormancy, sending up root and side shoots. Residual benefits of the previous years’ trimming is visible in the openness between the lower trunks, with corresponding reduced channel roughness during high flows, increasing the capacity of the levee system to provide flood protection.

Page 6: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 6 of 28

Figure 2. May 11, 2009. In late spring 2009, willows are sending out root and side shoots.

Figure 3. August 28, 2009. Creek corridor in the coastal zone following summer 2009

trimming by the CCCs. At this point in the season, following lower than normal rainfall in the winter, most of the lower few miles of Arroyo Grande Creek had gone dry.

Page 7: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 7 of 28

Figure 4. May 19, 2010. This spring, residual benefits of trimming up the lower willow branches

during the prior year can be seen, but new work is needed to remove recently fallen trees from the low flow creek channel, and trim new shoots.

Figure 3 shows the creek immediately following vegetation management work during summer 2009. And Figure 4 provides an example of current conditions. These photos, as well as those in Exhibit C, illustrate the cumulative benefits of the vegetation management work performed in the AG Creek flood control channel 2005-2009, showing that several months after the work is completed, the willows retain openness on the lower six feet of their trunks, while continuing to provide shade canopy and riparian habitat. The work in 2010 in these reaches of the flood channel will consist primarily of pruning of root shoots and side shoots, to continue to train willow growth into the upper canopy in order to enhance conveyance during high flows. For additional photographs illustrating six years of vegetation management in the AG Creek

flood control channel, please see Exhibit C.

Wildlife observations during 2009 vegetation work

California Red-Legged Frog. Locations of observations of California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) are provided in Exhibit D. Whenever CRLF were observed during pre-project surveys, 25-foot radius no-disturbance buffer zones were established around the frog/tadpoles. These sites were resurveyed later in the season to determine if CRLF were still present; if they were no longer present, vegetation management work would proceed at that time.

Beavers. Only a few beaver dams were in place in the flood control zone, upstream of Highway 1 bridge. One adult beaver was observed at leisure on the creek bank near the 22nd Street bridge (Figure 5).

Page 8: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 8 of 28

Figure 5. August 20, 2010. Beaver on creek bank near 22nd Street bridge.

Invasive species removal

As part of the vegetation management work during the 2009 project, the CCCs crews removed many clumps of castor bean. All cuttings and seed heads from these plants were transported in covered vehicles to an authorized disposal area. The use of a covered bed truck for transport was approved by the CDFG in 2006 as an alternative to bagging; the covered bed truck achieves the goal of preventing the spread of seeds while in transport, while reducing the use of plastic and crew labor time. At the conclusion of the crew’s work, with the approval of CDFG’s biologist overseeing streambed alteration agreements, for the third year in a row a licensed applicator from the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commission treated new and respouting arundo clumps, as well as pampass grass, with CDFG-approved herbicide.

San Luis Obispo County Projects Project work to raise and improve the road surface on the west end of the north levee was completed in spring 2010, using the State Parks OHV grant funding to supplement Zone 1/1A tax funds. The work included raising a length of 1600 feet of the north levee surface an average of two to three feet, up to the original design elevation for the levee.

Page 9: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 9 of 28

Figure 6. Resurfaced levee top near Guitons Crossing. This work returned the

1600 feet of levee in the coastal zone to the original design elevation.

Page 10: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 10 of 28

III. The Big Picture As background for the selective vegetation management project proposed for the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel for summer 2010, below is a brief history of agriculture, flooding and development in the La Cienega Valley and the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Aerial photo showing Arroyo Grande Creek, with

Zone 1/1A Flood Control District outlined in red.

Agricultural Production

La Ciénega Valley and the Arroyo Grande Valley have long histories as one of California’s most productive agricultural regions because of the mild climate and rich soil. Much of the valleys’ land is farmed by families who have been on the land for three and even four generations. Many are of Japanese descent, whose lands were preserved intact by their neighbors when they were subject to internment during World War II. This area continues to be an important part of San Luis Obispo’s economy and heritage.

Today, agriculture in the Arroyo Grande Valley is generally intensive commercial production

by experienced growers. The mild climate allows for year-round production, with most fields able to produce 2-1/2 to 3 crops each year. In 1996, the fertile soils of the 2500-acre Arroyo Grande Valley yielded approximately $10 million in crop value; by 2008, crop value was estimated at approximately $10,000/acre/year, or $25 million for the entire La Ciénega Valley. Arroyo Grande is a major shipping point for broccoli, Brussel sprouts, celery, cabbage, endive, cabbage, lettuce, onions, peppers, spinach, squash, tomatoes, cherry tomatoes, and strawberries. A small portion of the area is also occupied by orchards, including both avocados and walnuts. The Pismo Oceano Vegetable Exchange (POVE) ships more than 3.75 million boxes of produce by truck each year.

Page 11: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 11 of 28

Construction of the AG Creek Flood Control Channel

In the years leading up to the 1950’s, repeated severe flooding from Arroyo Grande Creek

resulted in losses to prime farmland, as well as to residences and businesses (Figures 8 and 9).

Figure 8. 1914: Sandbagging in Oceano to control flooding from

AG Creek and Meadow Creek.

Figure 9. 1956: Flooding of hundreds of acres of farmland in

La Cienaga Valley.

At the time, Arroyo Grande was a rural community of fewer than 5,000 residents. In response to concerns about repeated flooding, the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Project, a joint USDA-Soil Conservation Service/Arroyo Grande RCD project, was completed in 1961 to protect homes and farmland in La Ciénega Valley. (These organizations are now known as the USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Coastal San Luis RCD, respectively.)

Page 12: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 12 of 28

Figure 10. Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel, at Highway 1 Bridge, shortly after

completion of levee construction in 1961. The main feature of the project is a levee system (Figure 10) which constrains Arroyo Grande

Creek from its confluence with Los Berros Creek downstream to the Pacific Ocean. Runoff from Pismo Lake, traveling through Meadow Creek, enters Arroyo Grande Creek through a pair of flap gates near the Pismo Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area. The total length of the flood control channel is 2.8 miles. Currently, the height of the levee wall averages 15 feet above the bankfull stream terrace, with an average width of sixty (66) feet between the levee toes.

Maintenance of the project is the responsibility of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control

and Water Conservation District (“SLOCFCWCD”), under the purview of the County Public Works Department. Landowners within the flood control district, called “Zone 1/1A,” are assessed annual fees to support the maintenance work. The Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee is made up of agriculturalists and other landowners within the zone, and has been meeting regularly since June 2001.

Page 13: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 13 of 28

Urbanization of Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed

The natural features that make the Arroyo Grande Valley such an abundant agricultural area

also make it desirable for urban and suburban centers. American Farmland Trust identified the coastal portion of San Luis Obispo County as an area with a large amount of high quality farmland and a high rate of development (AFT, 2003). During the late 1990’s, 625 new home sites were approved in the City of Arroyo Grande in a period of 5 years. This number represented an increase of almost 10% in a city with only 6,750 housing units (US Census, 2000). This urbanization puts development pressure on agricultural land conversion. The current population of the Arroyo Grande Creek watershed totals over 35,000 (increased from fewer than 5,000 in the entire valley in the 1950’s), with more than 13,000 households.

Figure 11. Proximity of residences and farmland to AG Creek flood control channel.

The growth of residential housing in this area included establishment of mobile home parks

immediately adjacent to the north side of the AG Creek flood control channel (Figure 11). These mobile home parks currently provide important, and scarce, low-cost housing to predominantly elderly and fixed-income residents. However, as part of Zone 1/1A, these communities are at risk of flooding should AG Creek overtop or breach its north levee.

Environmental Protections

In addition to being a USGS blue line stream, Arroyo Grande Creek and its lagoon provide habitat for three federally listed aquatic species: California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and (more recently documented in the AG Creek lagoon) the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberry). Consequently, environmental protections provided by the the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973 made maintenance of the channel to its original trapezoidal channel design specifications much more challenging.

AG Creek flood

control channel

Mobile home

parks next to

north levee

Farmland next

to south levee

Page 14: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 14 of 28

Renewed Flood Threats

Much of the AG Creek watershed consists of steep and/or highly erodible soils (Soil

Conservation Service 1984), and building on these soils places them at great erosion risk. When not properly protected during construction, or even following natural events such as forest fires, soils left exposed during the rainy season have resulted in accelerated erosion and thus creek sedimentation. Also, research in other watersheds has found that the increase in impermeable surfaces that accompanies housing and business development, such as that seen in the AG Creek watershed, can contribute significantly to a change in the watershed’s flood hydrograph, with “flashier” flows exacerbating streambed erosion. Depending on the dynamics of the particular watershed, the altered hydrograph may also increase overall peak streamflows and flood risk (Booth and Jackson 1997).

Eroded sediment from events in the upper watershed eventually settles in the lower reaches

of AG Creek, raising the bed of the flood control channel and reducing the channel’s capacity to transport water. The present configuration of the channel was “state of the art” when it was designed almost 50 years ago but, even before recent urbanization of the watershed, the channel required periodic sediment removal to maintain its flood control function.

Dense vegetation growth also diminished channel capacity. As channel maintenance

decreased in recent decades in response to changing regulatory requirements and budget challenges, the willows in the flood control channel grew into a dense, continuous mass extending the length of the channel’s bed and banks. The dense willow growth increased the roughness coefficient (resistance to flow) of the creek, reduced the channel’s overall capacity, and increased the risk of backwatering, debris jams and potentially levee breaches, such as occurred in 2001 (see below).

In the 1950’s, the AG Creek flood control channel was designed to handle a 100-year storm,

then calculated to be 10,120 cubic feet per second (cfs). However, in the past 50 years, knowledge of the watershed’s hydrology has improved and the period of record for rainfall gathered more data, allowing for improved runoff and stormflow calculations. In addition, urbanization of the watershed has likely altered the creek’s hydrograph. Both the 1999 Army Corps of Engineers report and 2006 Alternatives Study now calculate the 100-year flood at more than 19,200 cfs, almost twice the 1950’s estimate of 10,120 cfs (USACoE 1999; SH&G 2006). In fact, a 2001 US Army Corps of Engineers study estimated the system was only capable of conveying flows at 15% of its design capacity. In addition, with the revised predictions of stormflow events, the 2001 study predicted that the channel could only carry runoff from a 2-year to 5-year stormflow event, and that larger flows would cause flooding if Lopez Dam was full and spilling (USACoE 2001). The research done for the 2006 Alternatives Study confirmed these findings (SH&G 2006).

The costs of carrying out channel maintenance, including the cost of environmental review

and permitting, have also proven a barrier to restoring channel capacity. In a 1999 study, the County of San Luis Obispo Engineering Department estimated that the cost of restoring the channel to its original design to be $2.5 million (County of SLO 1999). The State Department of Water Resources in 2005 estimated that restoring and maintaining channel capacity over the course of 5 years would cost over $5 million (DWR 2004). Since these estimates were made, costs have likely increased substantially.

Page 15: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 15 of 28

In summary, accelerated upstream erosion over past decades, and decreased channel maintenance due to increased costs and environmental regulation challenges, resulted in accumulation of sediment and dense vegetation growth in the flood control channel. These factors, combined with new data allowing more accurate stormflow predictions, showed that in 2005 the channel capacity offered protection for no more than a 5-year flood event, rather than the 100-year flood event for which it was designed. Additionally, costs of performing channel maintenance had skyrocketed, creating budgetary barriers.

All of these factors combine to create a flood threat that endangers residents, businesses, and

agricultural production.

2001: Levee breach leads to wide-scale flooding On March 5, 2001, the levee system broke on the south side below UPRR Bridge during a moderately large storm event, flooding hundreds of acres of farmland and several residences (Figure 12). Fortunately, the northern levee did not breach. Otherwise, the regional wastewater treatment plant (location shown in Figure 13) that services the communities of Arroyo Grande, Oceano and Grover Beach, and many more residences and mobile home parks could have been flooded.

Figure 12. Flooding resulting from April 2001 levee breach on AG Creek flood control channel.

Page 16: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 16 of 28

Figure 13. The photo above shows the location of the South San Luis Sanitation Plant on the north side of the AG Creek flood control channel during the 2001 flood. There is concern that if the levee breached on the north side, instead of on the south side as it did in 2001, that the wastewater treatment plant could be flooded.

The damage to hundreds of acres of farmland, residences and businesses resulting from the

2001 flood event led to claims against the SLOCFCWCD totaling more than $1 million dollars.

2003: SLO County votes to relinquish Zone 1/1A flood control channel to State Department of Water Resources

At its April 1, 2003 meeting, the County Board of Supervisors, sitting as the San Luis Obispo

County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SLOCFCWCD), passed a “Resolution to Relinquish the Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Diversion Flood Control Channels and Appurtenant Structures to the State of California.” County Public Works Department staff recommended that maintenance responsibilities be turned over to the state Department of Water Resources (DWR) because the SLOCFCWCD had not been able to maintain the channel. The reasons for inadequate maintenance included current regulatory requirements that limited the County’s ability to obtain permits to restore original channel design capacity, and inadequate yearly revenue from assessed landowners in the flood control district to fund maintenance activities. Because of difficulty in adequately maintaining the channel, the County was concerned that future liability costs could be potentially significant.

While DWR was mandated to accept this responsibility under California Water Code Section

12878, the Water Code also required that costs for channel maintenance be borne solely by the approximately 450 property owners in the maintenance area, or “zone of special benefit”, delineated by DWR (this area includes most, but not all, of Zone 1/1A). In 2005, DWR provided a “Statement

Wastewater treatment plant

AG Creek Flood Channel

Page 17: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 17 of 28

of Necessary Work” for the flood control channel, which included anticipated assessments for Zone 1/1A landowners: under DWR, a residential property owner who had been paying less than $10 per year to the Zone 1/1A flood control district for the previous 50 years would owe almost $850 the first year under DWR, and approximately $1700 per year for the next 5 years. This assessment would pose a tremendous hardship to local residents, the majority of whom are elderly and on limited incomes. There would be similar financial burdens imposed on the local small businesses, and there was concern that the greatly increased costs could force farmers in the district to sell their land, thereby opening the possibility of losing extremely productive agricultural land to development.

In addition, under the Water Code, DWR would have been constrained in how they could

manage the channel, i.e., they would be mandated to attempt to restore the channel to its original trapezoidal design, with no flexibility to consider other more environmentally sensitive options.

2006: Local Property Owners Vote to Increase Assessments for Flood Control Channel Maintenance and Keep Local Control; SLO County Rescinds Relinquishment to DWR.

When Zone 1/1A residents, farmers and business owners learned of the potential for

economically devastating increases in assessment fees if relinquishment to DWR went forward, they organized to develop an alternative proposal to the County Board of Supervisors to maintain local control of the flood channel. On June 14, 2005, the group presented their proposal to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board voted unanimously to request a one-year delay in relinquishment to DWR to allow time for the local group to develop an alternative strategy for managing the flood channel.

The County and the Zone 1/1A Task Force, consisting of Zone 1/1A property owners and

stakeholder organizations, worked together over the ensuing months to organize a Proposition 218 election to raise sufficient funds to provide a basic level of flood channel maintenance without putting an oppressive financial burden on Zone 1/1A property owners. To determine the boundaries of the Prop 218 “zone of benefit” for AG Creek flood channel, the County hired a local engineering firm, Cannon Associates, to produce the required assessment engineer's report. The landowners identified in this report were mailed Prop 218 ballots in April 2006.

While the Prop 218 ballot measure was being developed and mailed out, the 2005-06 wet

season produced abundant rainfall, producing several high flow events in the flood control channel (Figures 14 and 15). Those involved with AG Creek management believed that the vegetation management work of fall 2005 likely played an important role in increasing channel capacity enough to enable the channel to contain the high flow events of January through April 2006.

Page 18: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 18 of 28

Figure 14. January 2, 2006: Looking downstream (west) from 22nd Street Bridge at AG Creek flow

approaching the bottom of UPRR Bridge, within the LCP zone.

Figure 15. April 5, 2006: Looking upstream (east) from 22nd Street Bridge at high AG Creek levels

on north levee. Mobile home parks sit on the other side of the north levee. When the returned ballots were counted on June 8, 2006, the Prop 218 measure passed with

more than 89% of the votes cast. Under this measure, the average residential homeowner was

Page 19: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 19 of 28

assessed $390 the first year, not to increase by more than 3% per year, and farmers and business owners will see their assessments raised similarly, generating a total annual assessment of $350,000 in 2007, with 3% annual increases. These monies can only be spent on activities within the flood control channel which provide direct flood protection benefits to Zone 1/1A landowners; by law, Prop 218 funds cannot be spent on projects outside the zone of direct benefit.

As a result of the overwhelming passage of the Prop 218 measure for Zone 1/1A, on June 27,

2006, the County Board of Supervisors, acting as the SLOCFCWCD, rescinded their 2003 resolution to relinquish the flood channel to DWR. By keeping the maintenance responsibility local, channel maintenance can be conducted both in a more flexible and environmentally sensitive manner than would have been possible under DWR.

Looking to the Future: Planning for the Long-Term Management of

the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel

The Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study: Identifying the problems and solutions

In July 2003, the California Coastal Commission approved a Coastal Development Permit for the SLOCFCWCD to perform sediment removal in the channel to improve its flood carrying capacity (Permit Application No 3-02-072). The SLOCFCWCD had applied for this permit prior to the vote to relinquish to DWR. A condition of the permit was that within 3 years of the sediment removal project, the permittee would submit a “comprehensive analysis of the alternatives available to protect public safety and existing development from floods, accompanied by a proposed strategy and timeline for implementation of the least environmentally damaging feasible method(s).”

Fifteen months later, in June 2004, the SLOCFCWCD approved funding in the amount

$150,000 to the CSLRCD to conduct an Arroyo Grande Creek watershed assessment and flooding analysis. The County grant was matched by $150,000 from the State Coastal Conservancy, and augmented by $15,000 from the State Dept. of Parks and Recreation Off-Highway Vehicles Division, for a total of $315,000.

The consulting firm of Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology (SH&G) was contracted by

the CSLRCD to conduct the study, and began work in February 2005. A Technical Advisory Team met with SH&G staff twice during 2005 to provide feedback and recommendations regarding which options to consider for analysis in the Alternatives Study, and to review preliminary results. The Technical Advisory Team consisted of representatives from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, California Department of Fish and Game, the Coastal Conservancy, NOAA/NMFS, Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Luis Obispo County Public Works and Environmental Planning Departments, City of Arroyo Grande, Oceano Community Services District, Central Coast Salmon Enhancement, Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study” was

completed in January 2006. This study, referred to as the “Alternatives Study”, focused in-depth on erosion sources, sedimentation and hydrology as they relate to recurring flooding in the lower reaches of the creek. In doing the analysis and developing the alternatives, SH&G drew on their successful experience in designing the San Lorenzo River Management Plan, which includes an innovative vegetation maintenance component. The work that went into the Alternatives Study included

Page 20: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 20 of 28

extensive and detailed computer modeling, based on 2005 topographic maps generated via high resolution aerial photography, augmented by on-the-ground field surveys. HEC-RAS and HEC-HMS were used to predict the flood protection benefits of various combinations of management practices and projects.

The final study described 6 different “Alternatives”, or sets of feasible projects and

management actions, that could be implemented to manage flooding in Zone 1/1A, and provided estimates of the degree of flood protection afforded by each Alternative, as well as cost. The Alternatives Study also discussed and analyzed the projected benefits of necessary watershed-wide management activities, such as floodplain restoration, stream restoration, and sediment control, to diminish flood risk.

The Alternatives Study is complemented by the Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed

Management Plan (“AGWMP”), completed by Central Coast Salmon Enhancement in 2005, and updated in 2009. The AGWMP focuses on watershed characteristics primarily as they affect steelhead trout habitat. The AGWMP includes two substantial appendices which provide stream survey data and habitat typing for the AG Creek watershed, and an assessment of geomorphic and hydrologic conditions. This data proved useful in the watershed analysis for the Alternatives Study, as well. In combination, the two studies provide a solid basis on which to plan protection of the Creek’s natural resources as well as successful long-term management of sedimentation and flood risk along the flood control channel.

Developing a Plan for Managing the Flood Control Channel

With the 2006 passage of the Proposition 218 measure, funding was now available to develop and carry out a long-term management plan for the flood control channel. In fall 2007, SLO County Public Works drafted a Notice of Preparation and a Request For Qualifications for preparation of an environmental impact report/environmental assessment and assistance with regulatory permitting. Representatives of the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee Task Force joined SLO County Public Works staff in reviewing applications, conducting interviews, and selecting a consulting firm to recommend to the SLO County Board of Supervisors for contract. The firm selected was the Morro Group, now SWCA, Inc., partnering with Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology to prepare a Waterway Management Program (WMP) based on Alternative 3C of the 2006 “Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study”. SWCA and SH&G conducted numerous technical and biological surveys of the flood control channel and adjacent areas.

In early 2010, the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

(“SLO County”) completed the Waterway Management Program (WMP) for the Zone 1/1A flood control channel, as well as the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The EIR and WMP are available for download from the County’s website www.SLOCountyWater.org (follow links to Zone 1/1A). The comment period for the draft EIR closed on July 19, 2010; certification by the SLO County Board of Supervisors (sitting as the SLO County Flood Control and Water Conservation District) is expected at their August 17, 2010 meeting.

The environmental permitting process for completion of activities described in the WMP will

begin as soon as the EIR for the WMP is certified. Regulatory agencies included in the permitting process will include at a minimum the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish

Page 21: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 21 of 28

and Game (CDFG), Army Corps of Engineers, California Coastal Commission, NOAA/NMFS, SLO County, and RWQCB.

SLO County continues to pursue grant funding to supplement from Zone 1/1A property assessments so that WMP projects can be fully implemented as soon as possible once the permitting process is completed, thereby improving flood protection for adjacent landowners.

Memorandum of Understanding: Uniting watershed stakeholders to address upstream issues contributing to flood risk

In 2008, the SLO County Board of Supervisors adopted the "Arroyo Grande Watershed and Creek Memorandum of Understanding". The City of Arroyo Grande first began drafting the AG Creek MOU in 2005, in collaboration with the Zone 1/1A Advisory Committee Task Force, with the goal of bringing together all the major stakeholders in the watershed to facilitate communication and collaboration on projects and policies for the “maintenance, protection, and enhancement of the Arroyo Grande Watershed and the creeks within the Watershed.” The City worked with SLO County and other proposed signatories through a number of drafts until the final wording was developed. In addition to facilitating inter-organization cooperation, it is expected that having a completed, signed MOU for the AG watershed should prove a helpful tool in obtaining grant funding for future watershed improvement projects, as funding agencies are increasingly anxious to see evidence of broad stakeholder support for protecting watersheds. Now that SLO County has signed the MOU, the City of AG, the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District (CSLRCD), and local non-profit Central Coast Salmon Enhancement (CCSE) are taking the lead on obtaining the remaining signatures. The NRCS signed the MOU in spring 2010, and a “kick-off” meeting for the AG MOU signatory group is scheduled for July 28, 2010. The meeting’s agenda will include developing a list of action items for the coming year.

Page 22: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 22 of 28

IV. Project Description

Selective vegetation thinning in Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel

in 2010

While the Waterway Management Program and EIR are completing the review and permitting process, it is essential to continue to provide as much flood protection as possible to Zone 1/1A residents, farmers and businesses, while protecting sensitive species and riparian habitat.

Without vegetation management, the “Alternatives Study” (SH&G 2006) determined that the AG Creek flood control channel only has capacity to handle, at most, a 4.6-year stormflow event, or approximately 2500 cubic feet per second with no freeboard. Vegetation management to reduce roughness increases channel capacity to the 7.3-year event, or approximately 4000 cfs (SH&G 2006, table 3.13). While still meager flood protection as compared with the standard of 100- to 200-year flood protection generally considered a minimum, the increased protection offered to adjacent landowners by vegetation management in the AG Creek flood channel is significant.

To this end, the CSLRCD and SLO County request a Coastal Development Permit Waiver to conduct vegetation management work in the Coastal Zone portion of the AG Creek flood control channel during summer of 2010. Under this project proposal, during the period August 1 through October 31, 2009, we propose to coordinate work to selectively trim willows within the bed and on the banks of the AG Creek flood control channel (including the portion of Los Berros Creek that lies within Zone 1/1A). This work would follow the same protocols used under the 2009 CDP Waiver, with the following changes:

Work will be conducted by a landscape contracting company instead of the California Conservation Corps in order to reduce costs to Zone 1/1A.

The new CDFG permit allows for thinning of heavy woody brush in the upslope portions of the levee as follows: in areas where coyote brush (Baccharis sp.) constitutes greater than 50% groundcover, no more than one-third of the existing coyote brush may be cut to within 6 inches of the ground.

The project continues to include invasive species removal, particularly arundo and castor bean, to improve habitat. Information from the Alternatives Study supporting vegetation management To increase the flood control channel’s capacity to handle flows while preserving habitat for sensitive species, the most fundamental flood reduction tool recommended by the 2006 Alternatives Study was vegetation management:

“Maintain 10 foot vegetated buffer around low flow channel; remove remaining vegetation; limb up vegetation within buffer to encourage taller vegetation overhanging the channel.”

This component is included in all six Alternatives presented in the Alternatives Study, and is part of the regular maintenance used in the San Lorenzo River project. This single management action of vegetation management would increase channel capacity from 2500 cfs to 4000 cfs, or from a 4.6-year maximum flood capacity to a 7.3-year maximum capacity (SH&G 2006, Table 3.13). We are proposing a modified, less intensive version of this practice for 2009.

Page 23: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 23 of 28

Proposed Work Plan Because of the management history of the AG Creek flood control channel since construction in 1961, there are no mature cottonwoods, alders or sycamores within the channel. However, during the past 6 years of limited vegetation management, all young cottonwoods, sycamores and alders have been protected, and there are now many that are 10-20 feet tall (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Young cottonwoods (foreground) on inside of AG Creek levee bank, April 2009. Cottonwoods, sycamores and alders are left in place during vegetation management work; on the larger trees, the lower branches are pruned to

encourage growth on the main trunk and upper canopy, and open the lower area for flood flows.

Nonetheless, the woody vegetation in the channel still largely consists of native willows, which resprout readily if the root ball remains intact, as it does with the current management approach. We propose the following vegetation management strategy, which is the same as that implemented in 2009: Vegetation management strategy:

o Trees greater than 4” in diameter on the banks of the active channel, from the toe of the active stream channel bank uphill to a distance of 10 feet from the channel, will have horizontal branches trimmed to a height of not more than six feet from ground level. If creek shade is provided by adjacent larger trees, willow sprouts less than 4” in diameter will be cut to within 6” of the ground. Trimming the trees on the banks in this manner encourages growth in the upper canopy of the trees, improving their ability over time to shade the creek, while also improving channel capacity to handle high flows.

o Willows less than 6” diameter located on the levee banks and benches more than 10 feet from the active flow channel would be cut at or within 6 inches of ground level.

Page 24: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 24 of 28

Willows and other trees 6” or greater in diameter will have horizontal branches pruned to a height not greater than 6 feet.

o No trees will be removed. All root balls will be left intact to enable resprouting and to help stabilize soils.

o All vegetation trimmings from non-invasive species will be removed from the channel, chipped onsite and placed outside of the channel.

o Crews from the California Conservation Corps will use hand tools such as pruning shears and chainsaws fueled with environmentally friendly, biodegradable oils to remove vegetation.

o All invasive exotic plant species shall be removed from the project site and disposed of properly.

o Large woody material within the creek channel will be cut or notched at 3-foot or greater intervals and left in the channel to provide woody habitat that would break into smaller pieces should it become jammed against bridge abutments.

o No heavy machinery will enter the channel. o All vehicles, including those pulling the chippers, will remain on the roads on top of the

levees, and shall not enter the channel. These protocols are in compliance with the California Department of Fish and Game 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement for this project (Exhibit B). The previous agreement expired in December 2009; a new agreement was established in 2010. Rationale for this approach to vegetative thinning:

o Trimming the lower branches on the trees within the 10 foot buffer area adjacent to the stream encourages the trees to put their growth into the tops of the trees, thereby providing more effective shade for the stream, and improving habitat for the steelhead trout.

o For any work conducted prior to August 1, considered to be the bird nesting period, surveys for nesting birds will be conducted and buffer zones established around nests in accordance with the CDFG Streambed Alteration Agreement.

o In the area outside the 10-foot buffer, where willows less than 6” diameter will be pruned to within 6 inches of the ground, this will increase the channel capacity during the winter when flows are high, and when birds are not nesting. In the spring, the root balls promptly and vigorously resprout, restoring availability of habitat during nesting season. This is demonstrated in photographs taken of AG Creek flood control channel vegetation from summer 2004 through spring 2009, showing lush regrowth following the pruning and thinning (Exhibit C).

o When channel capacity is reduced by dense vegetation, water is forced to a higher level in the channel, increasing the amount of the channel that is disturbed. Currently, the channel has only a 2 to 5 year flood capacity, meaning that it is likely to approach overtopping the levee walls every 2 to 5 years. And during most winters, water flows reach a depth of 6 feet or more, and all vegetation within that depth, where we are proposing to prune, will be flooded. This flooding results in flushing of bird nests, beaver dams and other materials to the ocean. It is in the spring and summer, when

Page 25: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 25 of 28

water flows are low and willows are regenerating, that vegetation close to the ground is available as habitat.

o If vegetation in the Coastal Zone is not thinned, or if a wider broader buffer zone such as 15 feet is used, with no vegetation to be thinned within that zone, then 30 feet – nearly 50% - of the 66-foot-wide channel would not have vegetation thinned where the vegetation is most dense. This would compromise the effectiveness of this flood risk reduction effort, not only in this stretch of the channel, but for the entire reach of the flood control channel, because lengthy unthinned sections would act as bottlenecks, slowing flows and backwatering the channel upstream, thereby increasing the risk of flooding of upstream farmland and residences.

Endangered Species Protections

o Potential presence of the California Red Legged Frog (CRLF) is assumed throughout the AG Creek flood control channel. Therefore, before work begins in a given stream reach, at least one day and one night survey will be conducted consistent with protocols established by the USFWS to identify exact locations of any CRLFs in the planned work area within 48 hours before work commences. If CRLF are observed, that area will be flagged and a “no-work” buffer zone established.

o On the first day of work by the vegetation management crew, a qualified biologist will conduct training sessions to familiarize the crew members with CRLF and steelhead trout, their habitat, general provisions and protections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, and a review of project boundaries. Crews will be familiarized with the role of the CRLF monitors working with their crew.

o While the crews are engaged in thinning the vegetation, a qualified biologist1 shall monitor all activities by the crews within the flood control channel. If CRLF are found to be present, all work activities shall cease within 25 feet in any direction of the frog. There will be no handling or relocation of CRLF.

o If the monitor identifies ideal CRLF vegetative habitat, the crew will be instructed to avoid all work activity on or near that habitat.

o No weedwhackers will be used by crews, in order to reduce the risk of harming CRLF. o A 25-foot buffer will be established around any observed CRLF, providing a 50-foot

diameter area protecting the frogs from impacts.

Timeline: We propose to conduct vegetation maintenance work between August 1 and October 31, 2009. All efforts will be made to complete the work as early as possible, in order to complete the project prior to the onset of heavy rains and increased streamflows.

1 The qualified biologists used for California red-legged frog monitoring for this project include both professional environmental consultants and, when available, experienced members of the CCCs who, in addition to years of experience on riparian projects, have received specialized training from USFWS-permitted biologists, in accordance with a program used extensively in projects implemented through the Morro Bay Project Clearwater Permit Coordination program approved by the USFWS Ventura Office.

Page 26: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 26 of 28

Project extent: The project will include the portion of the flood control channel beginning approximately ¼ mile upstream of the confluence with Meadow Creek at marker 1918.453 on Figure 17, or 0.15 miles below Guiton’s Crossing. Regarding the need for work between Guiton’s crossing and marker 1918.453: The channel below Guiton’s crossing continues to be very constricted for 0.15 miles downstream of the crossing, as is shown by the topographic contour lines on the aerial photo in Figure 17. This aerial photo and topo map were created based on high resolution aerial photographs taken in spring 2005. Seaward of that 0.15 mile point (marker 1918.453), the channel widens. For that reason, both the NRCS engineer working with us on this project, Susan Litteral, and the Swanson Hydrology and Geomorphology project manager for the Alternatives Study, John Dvorsky, stated that vegetation thinning to the 0.15 mile point below Guiton’s crossing was important, and, downstream of that point work, vegetation thinning is not necessary.

Figure 17. Marker 1918.453 marks the area downstream of Guitons Crossing where the channel widens. Vegetation

thinning is proposed upstream of marker 1918.453, where the channel is more constricted and prone to flooding.

V. Summary of Request to the Coastal Commission: CDP Waiver for Vegetation Management Work in 2010

The CSLRCD, County of San Luis Obispo, and the Zone 1/1A community share the values of the Coastal Commission: to manage the watershed in an environmentally sound manner, maintaining the natural resources of AG Creek and its sensitive species, while protecting the agricultural resources, businesses and residential community immediately adjacent to the creek. With the June 2006 passage of the Proposition 218 measure for AG Creek flood control channel, the local community chose to retain local management of the flood control channel, and has embarked on the process of developing a long-term management plan for the channel. In addition, stakeholders throughout the AG Creek watershed are uniting to improve watershed management practices and develop sound stream protection policies, since many of the flooding problems of Zone 1/1A are inextricably linked to the management of land upstream. The stakeholders are working together to obtain funding to implement floodplain restoration, stream restoration, and erosion prevention projects throughout the watershed. While planning for the long-term management of the AG Creek flood control channel is underway, it is essential to perform at least a minimal level of flood channel maintenance to protect the adjacent residents, farmers and business owners. Experience in performing similar levels of

Sanitation Plant

Page 27: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 27 of 28

vegetation management over the past five years has demonstrated that the program has been successful in improving the channel’s capacity to handle high storm flows, while protecting riparian and sensitive species habitat. We ask for your support of a Coastal Development Permit Waiver for the vegetation management program described above for the AG Creek flood control channel during the period August 1 through October 31, 2010.

Figure 18. Mallard in Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel near

Guiton’s Crossing, May 2009.

Page 28: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Project Description for CDP application 2010 Applicants: San Luis Obispo County and Coastal San Luis RCD

Page 28 of 28

VI. Literature Cited

American Farmland Trust. 2003. Website: www.farmland.org. Booth, D. and Jackson, C.R. 1997. Urbanization of Aquatic Systems – Degradation Thresholds, Stormwater Detention, and the Limits of Mitigation. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, Vol. 22, No. 5. Central Coast Salmon Enhancement. 2005; updated 2009. Arroyo Grande Creek Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for: the California Department of Fish and Game. Includes “Appendix B: Geomorphic and Hydrologic Conditions Assessment” and “Appendix D: Stream Inventory Report”. Available at: http://www.coastalrcd.org/AGWMP_TOC.html. Department of Water Resources. 2005. “Statement of the Department of Water Resources Regarding Necessary Work to Meet Federal Maintenance Standards for the Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Project Now the Responsibility of the San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, San Luis Obispo, California – Exhibit C: Work Plan.” Rischbieter, D. 2009. Lower Arroyo Grande Creek and Lagoon Fishery and Aquatic Resources Summary 2008 Monitoring Report: Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area, Pismo Dunes State Reserve (http://www.coastalrcd.org/Fisheries%20Studies/LowerAGFishSummary2006.pdf) San Luis Obispo County Engineering Department July 1999. “Engineering Analysis to Date for Arroyo Grande Creek and Los Berros Creek Double Levees.” Soil Conservation Service - USDA. 1984. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, California. Swanson Hydrology & Geomorphology. 2006. The Arroyo Grande Creek Erosion, Sedimentation and Flooding Alternatives Study. Prepared for the Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District. Available at: http://www.coastalrcd.org/Zone1-1A_Alternatives_Study_TOC.html. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 2001. HEC-RAS Modeling for Arroyo Grande Creek. San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1999. Report on Hydrologic Analysis of San Luis Obispo, Santa Rosa and Aroryo Grande Creeks. Discharge-Frequency Analysis. San Luis Obispo County, California. U.S. Census. 2000. http://www.census.gov/census2000/states/ca.html.

Page 29: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the
Page 30: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

GRuroRuR DepRRtnaENT oF FlsH Rr.ro GaueRecroN 4 - Cerurnnl Reorox1 234 Ensr Snnw AveNurFRESIto, CRlrroRruta 9371 0

SrReeMeeo AtreRRnoru AcReeM ENT

NortrrcRrroru No.'1 600-201 0-0026-R4ARnoyo GnnruoE nruo Los BrRRos CRe exs - SAN LUIS oBISPo coUNTY

Ms. Julrr TnotrlnsCoRsrnl Snru Lurs REsouRce CorusrRvRrroru Drsrnrct645 Mruru STREET, Sulre FMonno BRy, CRLTToRNIA 93442

Ms. Jrr-r- OcneruSaru Luts Oerspo CouNrv Flooo CorurRol aruo WnreR CorusrnvATtoNDrsrRrcr ZoNr 111ADepRRrvrNT oF Puelrc WonxsCoururv Govenxvrrur Ce ruruRSnru Luts Osrspo, CRlrroRrurn 93408

ARRovo Gnnruoe Cnerx Flooo CoNrRol CHRNurl VEcerRrroxMRNRcevrrut PRolecr

This Streambed Alteration Agreement (Agreement) is entered into between the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game (DFG) and two co-applicants, Ms. Julie Thomas,representing Coastal San Luis Resource Conservation District and Ms. Jill Ogren,representing San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District zone1/1A (collectively referred to as "Permittee").

RECITALS

WHEREAS, pursuant to Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 1602, Permittee notifiedDFG on March 8,2010, that Permittee intends to complete the Project described herein.

WHEREAS, pursuant to FGC Section 1603, DFG has determined that the Project couldsubstantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources and has includedmeasures in the Agreement necessary to protect those resources.

WHEREAS, Permittee has reviewed the Agreement and accepts its terms and conditions,including the measures to protect fish and wildlife resources.

NOW THEREFORE, Permittee agrees to complete the Project in accordance with theAgreement.

Owner
Typewritten Text
EXHIBIT B
Owner
Typewritten Text
Owner
Typewritten Text
Page 31: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-20 1 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AqreementPage 2 of 15

PROJECT LOCATION

The Project is located those portions of Arroyo Grande Creek and Los Berros Creek thatare part of the "San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation DistrictZone 111A. On Arroyo Grande Creek, the Project extends from approximately 0.25 milesupstream of the confluence of Meadow Creek, extending upstream on Arroyo GrandeCreek to approximately 100 yards upstream from its confluence with Los Berros Creek.On Los Berros Creek, the Project extends from approximately the eastern confluence withArroyo Grande Creek upstream to a location approximately 100 yards upstream ofCentury Lane in Arroyo Grande. Both sites are located in the County of San Luis Obispo,State of California; Latitude 35"06'30" N, Longitude 120"37'30" W, Township 32S, Range13E, MDB&M.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Project is limited to the following activities:

. Within the normal low flow channel of Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creeks,willows and other trees under four (4) inch diameter at breast height (DBH) may becut at or within 6-inches of ground level.

o A buffer zone not less than 10 feet in width measured from the edge of the normallow flow channel and extending landward shall be maintained at all times. In thisbuffer zone, limbs of trees with a DBH of four (4) inches or greater may be prunedor trimmed toffiignt of 6 feet above ground lbvel. Trees less than foirr (a) inchesDBH may be cut at or within 6-inches of ground level provided other trees arepresent to provide a shade canopy over the creek.

o Outside the buffer zone and below the top of any levee, willows less than six (6)inches DBH may be cut at or within 6-inches of ground level. Sycamore,cottonwood, and alder trees of any size shall not be cut or removed from the site. lnsuch areas where Coyote brush (Baccarus ssp) constitutes greater than 50 percentof ground cover, no more than one-third of the existing Coyote brush may be cut ator within 6-inches of ground height.

. Large woody material greater than four (4) inches DBH at its thickest point such asfallen trees or broken limbs may be cut into pieces 36-inches in length. Woodymaterial would remain in the riparian area outside the buffer zone in 36-inch lengthsor chipped and placed in the area between the levee and the landward edge of thebuffer zone.

. Equipment used will include chain saws and other hand tools.

PROJECT IMPAGTS

This Agreement is intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to the fishand wildlife resources that occupy the area of the Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creeks,and the immediate adjacent riparian habitat. The protective measures described in thisAgreement must be implemented in order to avoid impacts, with the area covered by thisAgreement to the following species: Federal threatened South Central California Coast

Page 32: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-20 1 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 3 of 15

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss rhdeus), Federal threatened California red-legged frogs(Rana aurora draytonii), California species of concern southwestern pond turtles(Actinemys marmorata), as well as birds, mammals, fish, reptiles, amphibians,invertebrates and plants that comprise the local riparian ecosystem.

MEASURES TO PROTECT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES

1. Administrative Measures -.-.>:

Permittee shall meet each administrative requirement described below.

1.1 Documentation at Proiect Site. Permittee shall make the Agreement, any extensionsand amendments to the Agreement, and all related notification materials andCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEOA) documents, readily available at theProject site at all times and shall be presented to DFG personnel or personnel fromanother State, Federal, or local agency upon request.

1.2 Providing Aqreement to Persons at Proiect Site. Permittee shall provide copies ofthe Agre'ement and any extensions and amendments to the Agreement to allpersons who will be working on the Project at the Project site on behalf of Permittee,including but not limited to contractors, subcontractors, inspectors, and monitors.

1.3 Notification of Conflictinq Provisions. Permittee shall notify DFG if Permitteedetermines or learns that a Provision in the Agreement might conflict with aProvision imposed on the Project by another local, State, or Federal agency. In thatevent, DFG shall contact Permittee to resolve any conflict.

1.4 Proiect Site Entrv. Permittee agrees that DFG personnel may enter the Project siteat any time to verify compliance with the Agreement.

1.5 Leqal Obliqations. This Agreement does not exempt the Permittee from complyingwith all other applicable local, State and Federal law, or other legal obligations.

1.6 Unauthorized Take. This Agreement does not authorize the "take" (defined in Fishand Game Code Section 86 as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill; or attempt tohunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of State- or Federal-listed threatened orendangered species. Any such "take" shall require separate permitting as may berequired.

1.7 Water Diversion. To the extent that the Provisions of this Agreement provide for thediversion of water, they are agreed to with the understanding that the Permitteepossesses the legal right to so divert such water.

1.8 Trespass. To the extent that the Provisions of this Agreement provide for activitiesthat require the Permittee to trespass on another owner's property, they are agreedto with the understanding that the Permittee possesses the legal right to so trespass.

1.9 ConstructionMork Schedule. The Permittee shall submit a construction/workschedule to DFG (mail, or fax to (559) 243-4020, with reference to Agreement

Page 33: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notifi cation #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AoreementPage 4 of 15

2009-0026-R4) prior to beginning any activities covered by this Agreement. ThePermittee shall also notify DFG upon the completion of the activities covered by thisAgreement.

1 .10 Traininq. Prior to starting any activity within the stream, all empioyees, contractors,and visitors who will be present during Project activities shall have received trainingfrom a qualified individual on the contents of this Agreement, the resources at stake,andthelega|consequenceSofnon-compliance'=.>.

2. Avoidance and Minimization Measures

To avoid or minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources identified above,Permittee shall implement each measure listed below.

2.1 ConstructionMork Hours. All non-emergency work activities during the constructionphase will be confined to daylight hours. For purposes of this Agreement, "daylighthours" are defined as that daytime period between sunrise and sunset.

2.2 Flaqqinq/Fencinq. Prior to any activity within the lake or creek, the Permittee shallidentify the limits of the required access routes into the stream. These "work area"entry and exit areas shall be identified with brightly-colored flagging/fencing. Accessto the stream channel shall be limited to this defined area only. Flagging/fencingshall be maintained in good repair for the duration of the Project.

2.3 Listed Species.

(a) This Agreement does not allow for the "take," or "incidental take," of any State-or Federal-listed threatened or endangered species.

(b) The Permittee affirms that no "take" of listed species will occur as a result ofthis Project and will take prudent measures to ensure that all "take" is avoided.The Permittee acknowledges that they fully understand that they do not haveState "incidental take" authority. lf any State- or Federal-listed threatened orendangered species occur within the proposed work area or could be impactedby the work proposed, and thus "taken" as a result of Project activities, thePermittee is r:esponsible for obtaining and complying with required State andFederal threatened and endangered species permits or other writtenauthorization before proceeding with this Project.

(c) Liability for any "take," or "incidental take," of such listed species remains theseparate responsibility of the Permittee for the duration of the Project.

(d) The Permittee shall immediately notify DFG of the discovery of any such rare,threatened, or endangered species prior to and/or during construction.

Page 34: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 5 of 15

(e) The Project site has been identified as an area that is potentially inhabited bytwo (2) threatened species, the California red-legged frog and south CentralCalifornia Coast steelhead. The Permittee is required to comply with allapplicable State and Federal laws, including the California and FederalEndangered Species Acts. This Agreement does not authorize the "take" ofany State- or Federal- listed species. Liability for any "take" or "incidental take"of such listed species remains the responsibility of the Permittee for theduration of the Project. Any unauthorized "take" of such listed species mayresult in prosecution and nullification of the Agreement.

(f) Project activities shall be limited to the period of June 15 through October 31 .

After October 31, construction activities may be extended on a day-to-day basisby contacting Mr. Mike Hill at (805) 471-7222 or the Central Region office at(559) 243-4014, extension 240. No Project activities shall occur following thefirst significant rainfall after October 31. For purposes of this Agreement,"significant rainfall" is defined as rainfall totaling one-quarter of one inch (1/4inch) of rain in any 24-hour period.

(g) Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct training sessions tofamiliarize all construction personnel with identification of southern steelheadand California red-legged frogs, their habitat, general Provisions andprotections afforded by the Endangered Species Act, measures implemented toprotect southern steelhead and California red-legged frogs, and a review of theProject boundaries. During construction, a qualified biologist shall monitorconstruction activities including, but not limited to, excavation of the sites,installation and removal of diversion structures, and sediment/erosion controldevices.

(h) To minimize the possibility of injuring Califor:nia red-legged frogs and otherwildlife, herbaceous and small shrubby vegetation within the Project boundariesthat would be disturbed by subsequent Project activities shall be removed byhand prior to the use of heavy equipment or machinery. All trash shall beremoved from the site daily to avoid attracting potential predators to the site.No pets shall be permitted to be at the site during construction.

(i) Within 48 hours prior to construction, the Project site shall be surveyed forCalifornia red-legged frogs by a qualified biologist. lf any California red-leggedfrogs are found to be present in the construction area, a flagged "no work" zoneshall be established, prohibiting entry and disturbance at least 25 feet in alldirections from the frog.

2.4 Fish and Wildlife.

(a) lf any fish or wildlife is encountered during the course of construction, said fishand wildlife shall be allowed to leave the construction area unharmed.

Page 35: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notifi cation #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration Ao reementPage 6 of 15

(b) To protect nesting birds, no construction shall be completed from March 1

through July 31 unless the following surveys are completed by a qualifiedbiologist.

Raptors: Survey for nesting activity of raptors within a O.ZS mile radius ofthe construction site. Surveys shall be conducted at appropriate nestingtimes and concentrate on mature trees. lf any active nests are observed,these nests and nest trees shall be designated an E_SA and protected(while occupied) during Project-construction and cijnstruction activity shallnot occur within 250 feet of the nests until the young have fledged.

Other Avian Species: Survey riparian areas for nesting activity within a0.25 mile radius of the defined work area two (2)to three (3) weeks beforeconstruction begins. lf any nesting activity is found, construction activityshall not occur within 250 feet of the nests until the young have fledged.

2.5 Veqetation.

(a) For'purposes of this Agreement, "mature trees" means native trees equal to orgreater than four (4) inches DBH. Sycamore, cottonwood, and alder trees ofany size shall not be cut or removed from the site.

(b) The disturbance or removal of vegetation shall not exceed the minimumnecessary to complete operations and shall only occur within the defined workarea. Precautions shall be taken to avoid other damage to vegetation bypeople or equipment. The disturbed portions of the stream bed, banks orchannel shall be restored to as near their original condition as possible (seeRestoration below).

(c) Within the normal low flow channel of Arroyo Grande and Los Berros Creeks,willows and other trees under four (4) inches DBH may be cut at or within6-inches of ground level. Sycamore, cottonwood, and alder trees of any sizeshall not be cut or removed from the site. For purposes of this Agreement, the"normal low flow channel" is defined as that area located between the ordinaryhigh water mark as determined according to guidelines of the Army Corps ofEngineers.

(d) A buffer zone not less than 10 feet in width measured from the edge of thenormal low flow channel and extending landward shall be maintained at alltimes. In this buffer zone,limbs of trees with a DBH of four (4) inches orgreater may be pruned or trimmed between ground level to a height of 6 feetabove ground level. For purposes of this Agreement, "Diameter at breastheight" is defined as the diameter of a tree trunk at a point measured 4 lzfeetabove ground level starting at the base of the trunk. Trees less than four (4)inches DBH may be cut at or within 6-inches of ground level provided othertrees are present to provide a shade canopy over the creek. No mature treesshall be cut within the buffer zone.

Page 36: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 7 of 15

(e) Outside the buffer zone and below the top of any levee, willows less than four(4) inches DBH may be cut at or within 6-inches of ground level. Sycamore,cottonwood, and alder trees of any size shall not be cut or removed from thesite. In such areas where Coyote brush (Baccarus ssp) constitutes greaterthan 50 percent of ground cover, no more than one-third oFthe existing Coyotebrush may be cut at or within 6-inches of ground height. No mature trees shallbe cut within the buffer zone.

(f) Large woody material greater than four (4) inches DBH at its thickest point suchas fallen trees or broken limbs may be cut into pieces 36-inches in length.Woody material shall be allowed to remain in the riparian area. Any trees,shrubs, or other woody material that is cut into 36-inch lengths shall betransported by hand to that area of the channel between the levee and thelandward edge of the buffer zone and allowed to decompose in place.Alternatively, the material may be chipped and placed in the area between thelevee and the landward edge of the buffer zone.

(g) Vegetation or material removed from the riparian area during Project activitiesshall not be stockpiled in the streambed or on its banks without measures toensure its stability, preventing accidental discharge into the stream.

(h) Equipment to be used is limited to hand tools including chain saws. Under nocircumstance shall backhoes, excavators, or any motorized equipment otherthan chain saws be used for Project activities.

(i) All invasive exotic plant species shall be removed from the Project site. AnyVinca, Cape or German ivy, Castor bean, Arundo, or other exotic plant speciesshall be bagged or deposited directly into a covered vehicle and appropriatelydisposed of in a landfill. Exotic species shall not be used in composting or leftotherwise exposed in or around the Project site. All equipment shall beinspected for the presence of undesirable species prior to on-site use andcleaned to reduce the risk of introducing exotic plant species into the Projectsite.

2.6 Vehicles.

(a) Vehicles shall not be operated in areas where surface water is present.Vehicles shall only operate in the channel during naturally dry conditions orwhile the affected section of stream is dewatered.

(b) Construction vehicle access to the stream's banks shall be limited topredetermined and preexisting ingress and egress corridors on existing roads.All other areas adjacent to the work site shall be considered an ESA and shallremain off-limits to construction equipment. Vehicle corridors and the ESAshall be identified by the Permittee's resident engineer in consultation with theDepartment representative.

Page 37: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 8 of 15

2.7

2.8

(c) Vehicles shall not be driven where wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation oraquatic organisms may be destroyed, except as otherwise provided for in theAgreement, and as necessary to complete the authorized work.

(d) Any equipment or vehicles driven and/or operated adjacen{ to the stream shallbe checked and maintained daily to prevent leaks of materials that, ifintroduced to water, could be deleterious to aquatic and terrestrial life.

(e) Staging and storage areas for equipment, materials, fue-16, lubricants, andsolvents shall be located outside of the stream channel and banks. Stationaryequipment such as motors, pumps, generators, compressors and welders,located within or adjacent to the stream, shall be positioned over drip-pans.Vehicles shall be moved away from the stream prior to refueling and lubrication.

Spoil. Spoil storage sites shall not be located within the stream, where spoil will bewashed into the stream, or where it will cover aquatic or riparian vegetation. Rock,gravel, and/or other materials shall not be imported into or moved within the bed orbanks of,the stream, except as otherwise addressed in this Agreement.

Erosion.

(a) No work within the banks of the stream will be conducted during or immediatelyfollowing large rainfall events. All disturbed soils within the Project site shall bestabilized to reduce erosion potential, both during and following construction.Temporary erosion control devices, such as straw bales, silt fencing, and sandbags, may be used as appropriate to prevent siltation of the stream. Anyinstallation of non-erodible materials not described in the original Projectdescription shall be coordinated with DFG. Coordination may include thenegotiation of additional Agreement Provisions for this activity.

(b) Silty water shall not be discharged into the stream, or created within the stream.The Permittee's ability to minimize siltation shall be the subject ofpreconstruction planning and feature implementation. Precautions to minimizesiltation may require that the work site be isolated so that silt, or otherdeleterious materials, are not allowed to pass to downstream reaches. Theplacement of any structure or materials in the stream for this purpose, notincluded in the original Project description, shall be coordinated with DFG. lf itis determined that silt levels resulting from Project-related activities constitute athreat to aquatic life, activities associated with the siltation shall be halted untileffective DFG-approved control devices are installed, or abatement proceduresare initiated.

(c) Upon completion of Project activities, any exposed slopes or exposed areas onthe stream banks shall be seeded (with weed-free straw or mulch) with a blendof a minimum of three (3) locally native grass species. One (1) or two (2) sterilenon-native perennial grass species may be added to the seed mix provided that

Page 38: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 9 of 15

amount does not exceed 25 percent of the total seed mix by count. Locallynative wildflower and/or shrub seeds may also be included in the seed mix.The seeding shall be completed as soon as possible, but no later thanNovember 15 of the year construction ends. A seed mixtu[e shall be submittedto DFG for approval prior to application. At the discretion of DFG, all exposedareas where seeding is considered unsuccessful after 90 days shall receiveappropriate soil preparation and a second application of seeding, straw, ormulch as soon as is practical on a date mutually agreed upon.

2.9 Pollution.

(a) The Permittee and all contractors shall be subject to the water pollutionregulations found in the Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 5650and 12015.

(b) Raw cement, concrete or washings thereof, asphalt, drilling fluids or lubricants,paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum products, or any othersubstances which could be hazardous to fish or wildlife resulting from ordisturbed by Project-related activities, shall be prevented from contaminatingthe soil and/or entering the 'Waters of the State".

(c) In the event that a spill of any pollutant or hazardous material occurs, all Projectactivities shall immediately cease until cleanup of the spilled materials iscompleted. DFG shall be notified immediately by the Permittee of any spillsand shall be consulted regarding cleanup procedures.

(d) All Project-generated debris, building materials, and rubbish shall be removedfrom the stream and from areas where such materials could be washed into thestream.

(e) Where suitable vegetation cannot be reasonably expected to becomeestablished, non-erodible materials shall be used for such stabilization. Anyinstallation of non-erodible materials not described in the original Projectdescription shall be coordinated with DFG. Coordination may include thenegotiation of additional Agreement Provisions for this activity.

(f) All fueling and maintenance of vehicles, other equipment, and staging/storageareas shall be located at least 50 feet from any riparian habitat or water body.The Permittee shall ensure contamination of habitat does not occur during suchoperations.

2.10 Dewatering.

(a) In the event surface water flows are encountered in the channel during Project-related activities, diversion of water flow shall be required to complete Projectactivities and the Permittee shall submit a Surface Water Diversion Plan.

Page 39: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notifl cation #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 10 of 15

Water drafting, pumping, or other water diversion shall be done in a mannerthat is not harmful to fish or other aquatic or semi-aquatic species of wildlife.Pump inflow tubes or hoses shall be contained within a O.S-millimeter meshscreened cage to exclude all wildlife that may otherwise be harmed in theprocess.

(b) Any equipment or structures placed in the active channel for water drafting,pumping or diversion shall be done in a manner that (a) prevents pollutionand/or siltation; (b) provides flows to downstream reacl'res at all times tosupport aquatic life; (c) provides flows of sufficient quality and quantity, and ofappropriate temperature to support aquatic life, both above and below thediversion; and (d) restores normal flows to the affected stream immediatelyupon completion of work at each location.

(c) Any dewatering activities shall be done in a manner that prevents pollutionand/or siltation of downstream reaches. Infiltrating groundwater removed fromexcavations shall be pumped to a low-gradient vegetated upland area beforedischarging into the stream channel. Other filtration methods may be useddep,ending upon site specific conditions. Water pumped to upland areas shallbe discharged in a manner as to not cause erosion (i.e., installation of velocitydissipaters at the outfall).

3. Reporting Measures

Permittee shall meet each reporting requirement described below.

3.1 Obliqations of the Permittee.

(a) The Permittee shall have primary responsibility for monitoring compliance withall protective measures included as "Measures" in this Agreement. Protectivemeasures must be implemented within the time periods indicated in theAgreement and the program described below.

(b) The Permittee (or the Permittee's designee) shall ensure the implementation ofthe Measures of the Agreement, and shall monitor the effectiveness of theseMeasures.

3.2 Reports. The Permittee shall submit the following Reports to the DFG:

. Construction/work schedule (Administrative Measure 1.9).

o Results of avian surveys for nesting birds if construction is scheduled during theavian nesting season (Avoidance and Minimization Measure 2.4(b)).

o A seed mixture to be used to control erosion (Avoidance and MinimizationMeasure 2.8(c)).

o A Final Project Report to be submitted within 30 days after the Project iscompleted. The final report shall summarize the Project-construction, including

Page 40: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration Ag reementPage 11 of 15

any problems relating to the protective measures of this Agreement. "Beforeand after" photo documentation of the Project site shall be requir.ed.

GONTACT TNFORMATTON 1

Any communication that Permittee or DFG submits to the other shall be in writing and anycommunication or documentation shall be delivered to the address below by U.S. mail,fax, or email, or to such other address as Permittee or DFG specifies by written notice tothe other. :>:

To Permittees:

Julie ThomasCoastal San Luis Resource Conservation District645 Main Street, Suite FMorro Bay, California 93422Phone (805) 772-4391Fax (805) 772-4391

Jill OgrenSan Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Water Conservation DistrictZone 1l1ADepartment of Public WorksCounty Government CenterSan Luis Obispo, California 93408Phone (805) [email protected]

To DFG:

Department of Fish and GameRegion 4 - Central Region1234 East Shaw AvenueFresno, California 9371 0Attn: Lake and Streambed Alteration Program - Mike HillNotification #1 600-201 0-0028-R4Phone: (805) 489-7355Fax: (805)[email protected]

LIABILITY

Permittee shall be solely liable for any violations of the Agreement, whether committed byPermittee or any person acting on behalf of Permittee, including its officers, employees,representatives, agents or contractors and subcontractors, to complete the Project or anyactivity related to it that the Agreement authorizes.

Page 41: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration Aq reementPage 12 of 15

This Agreement does not constitute DFG's endorsement of, or require Permittee toproceed with the Project. The decision to proceed with the Project is Permittee's alone.

SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION J

DFG may suspend or revoke in its entirety the Agreement if it determines that Permitteeor any person acting on behalf of Permittee, including its officers, employees,representatives, agents, or contractors and subcontractors, is nolin compliance with theAgreement.

Before DFG suspends or revokes the Agreement, it shall provide Permittee written noticeby certified or registered mail that it intends to suspend or revoke. The notice shall statethe reason(s) for the proposed suspension or revocation, provide Permittee anopportunity to correct any deficiency before DFG suspends or revokes the Agreement,and include instructions to Permittee, if necessary, including but not limited to a directiveto immediately cease the specific activity or activities that caused DFG to issue the notice.

ENFORGEMENT

Nothing in the Agreement precludes DFG from pursuing an enforcement action againstPermittee instead of, or in addition to, suspending or revoking the Agreement.

Nothing in the Agreement limits or otherwise affects DFG's enforcement authority or thatof its enforcement personnel.

OTHER LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

This Agreement does not relieve Permittee or any person acting on behalf of Permittee,including its officers, employees, representatives, agents, or contractors andsubcontractors, from obtaining any other permits or authorizations that might be requiredunder other Federal, State, or local laws or regulations before beginning the Project or anactivity related to it.

This Agreement does not relieve Permittee or any person acting on behalf of Permittee,including its officers, employees, representatives, agents, or contractors andsubcontractors, from complying with other applicable statutes in the FGC including, butnot limited to, FGC sections 2050 et seq. (threatened and endangered species), 3503(bird nests and eggs), 3503.5 (birds of prey), 5650 (water pollution), 5652 (refuse disposalinto water), 5901 (fish passage), 5937 (sufficient water for fish), and 5948 (obstruction ofstream).

Nothing in the Agreement authorizes Permittee or any person acting on behalf ofPermittee, including its officers, employees, representatives, agents, or contractors andsubcontractors, to trespass.

Page 42: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AoreementPage 13 of 15

AMENDMENT

DFG may amend the Agreement at any time during its term if DFG determines theamendment is necessary to protect an existing fish or wildlife resource.

Permittee may amend the Agreement at any time during its term, provided theamendment is mutually agreed to in writing by DFG and Permittee. To request anamendment, Perrnittee shall submit to DFG a completed DFG "Request to Amend Lakeor Streambed Alteration" form and include with the completed form payment of thecorresponding amendment fee identified in DFG's current fee schedule (see Cal. CodeRegs., tit. 14, S 699.5).

TRANSFER AN D ASSIGNMENT

This Agreement may not be transferred or assigned to another entity, and any purportedtransfer or assignment of the Agreement to another entity shall not be valid or effective,unless the transfer or assignment is requested by Permittee in writing, as specified below,and thereafter DFG approves the transfer or assignment in writing.

The transfer or assignment of the Agreement to another entity shall constitute a minoramendment, and therefore to request a transfer or assignment, Permittee shall submit toDFG a completed DFG "Request to Amend Lake or Streambed Alteration" form andinclude with the completed form payment of the minor amendment fee identified in DFG'scurrent fee schedule (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, S 699.5).

EXTENSIONS

ln accordance with FGC section 1605(b), Permittee may request one extension of theAgreement, provided the request is made prior to the expiration of the Agreement's term.To request an extension, Permittee shall submit to DFG a completed DFG "Request toExtend Lake or Streambed Alteration" form and include with the completed form paymentof the extension fee identified in DFG's current fee schedule (see Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14,S 699.5). DFG shall process the extension request in accordance with FGC 1605(b)through (e).

lf Permittee fails to submit a request to extend the Agreement prior to its expiration,Permittee must submit a new notification and notification fee before beginning orcontinuing the Project the Agreement covers (Fish & G. Code, S 1605, subd. (f)).

EFFECTIVE DATE

The Agreement becomes effective on the date of DFG's signature, which shall be: 1)after Permittee's signature; 2) after DFG complies with all applicable requirements underthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 3) after payment of the applicable

Page 43: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 14 of 15

FGC section711.4 filing fee listed athttp ://www. dfq. ca. qov/h a bcon/ceq a/ceq a ch a nqes. htm I

TERM

This Agreement shall remain in effect until December 31,2014, unless it is terminated orextended before then. All Provisions in the Agreement shall remain in force throughout itsterm. Permittee shall remain responsible for implementing any Ploluisions specifiedherein to protect fish and wildlife resources after the Agreement expires or is terminated,as FGC section 1605(a) (2) requires.

GALTFORNtA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALTTY AGT (GEQA) COMPLTANCE

In approving this Agreement, the DFG is independently required to assess theapplicability of CEQA. The features of this Agreement shall be considered as part of theoverall Project description.

lf the DFG determines that CEQA review is required, as a CEQA Lead Agency the DFGshall be respohsible for preparing and circulating the appropriate document (NegativeDeclaration/Environmental lmpact Report) and will make findings and submit a Notice ofDetermination to the State Clearinghouse. Alternatively, the DFG may determine that theProject, as mitigated by the Provisions of this Agreement, is Exempt from CEQA, in whichcase, a Notice of Exemption will be filed.

EXHIBITS

The documents listed below are included as exhibits to the Agreement and incorporatedherein by reference.

A. Figure 1. Project Location USGS Quad Map.

AUTHORITY

lf the person signing the Agreement (signatory) is doing so as a representative ofPermittee, the signatory hereby acknowledges that he or she is doing so on Permittee'sbehalf and represents and warrants that he or she has the authority to legally bindPermittee to the Provisions herein.

Page 44: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Notification #1 600-201 0-0026-R4Streambed Alteration AgreementPage 15 of 15

AUTHORIZATION

This Agreement authorizes only the Project described herein. lf Permittee begins orcompletes a Project different from the Project the Agreement authorizes, Permittee maybe subject to civil or criminal prosecution for failing tb notify DFG in abcordance with FGCsection 1602.

CONCURRENCE

The undersigned accepts and agrees to comply with all Provisions contained herein.

FOR JULIE THOMAS

Julie Thomas

FOR JILL OGREN

Date

Jill Ogren

FOR DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME

Date

Jeffrey R. Single, Ph.D. Date

Regional Manager - Central Region

Prepared by: Mike Hill, Environmental Scientist

Page 45: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 1

Exhibit A

Page 46: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the
Page 47: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

EXHIBIT C Arroyo Grande Creek Flood Control Channel Vegetation Management:

A Photo Series

The Way It Was

For several decades, all vegetation growth was discouraged in the AG Creek flood control channel, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. 1961: AG Creek flood control channel, at Highway 1 Bridge, shortly after levee

construction.

Figure 2. January 1997: Although intensity of channel maintenance had diminished over the

years due to budgetary and environmental constraints, in 1997 there was still little riparian corridor vegetation in the flood control channel, as shown in this photograph looking upstream from 22nd Street Bridge. This contrasts dramatically with riparian corridor vegetation shown in

Figures 3-21, below.

Page 48: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Six seasons of vegetation management in photos 22nd Street Bridge from winter 2004 to spring 2010 This series of 19 photos (Figures 3-21), taken from the same location, illustrates the results of vegetation management on the Arroyo Grande Creek flood control channel from 2004 through early 2008, including regrowth of willows by the following year. Location: looking upstream from the 22nd Street Bridge on Arroyo Grande Creek, a few hundred feet east of the LCP coastal zone.

Figure 3. December 2004: Before vegetation work.

Figure 4. December 2004: After vegetation work, with willows beginning to

drop their leaves for winter.

Page 49: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Six seasons of vegetation thinning (continued)

Figure 5. August 2005: Regrowth: picture shows growth of vegetation since the previous fall.

Figure 6. November 2005: After thinning several weeks earlier.

Page 50: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 7. April 2006: Increased channel capacity due to vegetation management the previous fall was credited with enabling the channel to handle heavy flows during winter and early spring of 2006. (Note: this photo was taken after the peak flow had partially subsided.)

Figure 8. June 2006: Regrowth of channel vegetation by beginning of summer.

Page 51: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 9. October 19, 2006: Right (south) side thinned by CCCs a few days earlier, while the left (north) side and center island remained unthinned due to presence of red-legged frogs.

Figure 10. January 28, 2007: Willows have dropped leaves for winter. Note shrubby willow sprouts at base of trees on left bank, which was not thinned in 2006 due to presence of red-legged frogs.

Page 52: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 11. March 22, 2007. Willows leafing out at beginning of spring 2007.

Figure 12. May 18, 2007: Willows and herbaceous ground foliage show spring regrowth.

Page 53: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 13. July 3, 2007: Further growth before thinning by CCCs later in summer.

Figure 14. January 9, 2008: As willows are dropping leaves for winter, residual effects of thinning and trimming of lower branches during summer 2007 are visible in the openness

between lower willow trunks. The creek in this reach had been dry during much of summer 2007, and no red-legged frogs (RLF) were observed during day and evening surveys. Absence of RLF allowed thinning on north (left) side of creek in summer 2007 for first time since annual

vegetation maintenance activities resumed in 2004.

Page 54: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 15. May 13, 2008: Willows have “leafed out” and sent up root and side sprouts. Pruning

of these new shoots is needed to reduce vegetative roughness before the 2008-09 wet season.

Figure 16. August 11, 2008: Looking upstream from 22nd Street Bridge before willows

were pruned.

Page 55: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 17. March 29, 2009: Vegetation pruning was completed in this reach above 22nd

Street six months earlier, during September 2008, with the focus on pruning up side shoots on the lower 6 feet of tree trunks. The openness in the lower trees trunks is visible

in this March 2009 photo, before willows are fully “leafed out” following winter dormancy.

Figure 18. May 11, 2009: Looking upstream from 22nd Street Bridge one month later,

showing growth of additional side and root shoots on willows. Vigorous seasonal growth generally continues through the summer.

Page 56: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 19. August 28, 2009: Shortly after CCCs completed “trimming up” of

willows. Willows in the foreground (right side of photo) had not been trimmed yet because of presence of red-legged frogs, which had been observed during the standard pre-project surveys; a

“no-disturbance” buffer was established in this area. Later in the summer, this area was re-surveyed, and no RLFs were observed, so CCCs were able to complete the vegetation thinning.

Since this portion of the creek is within 50 feet of the 22nd Street bridge, it’s considered particularly important to keep the area open for water flows, since the bridge is a constriction

point with increased potential for debris jams.

Figure 20. April 7, 2010: Willows beginning to leaf out, but pruning

during prior summer still evident in openness in lower trunks.

Page 57: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 21. May 19, 2010: Looking upstream from 22nd Street Bridge a month later,

showing “leafing out”.

The photographs from 2009 and 2010, when compared with those from 2004 (Figures 3 and 4), demonstrate the increase in willow canopy height and breadth, offering increased stream shading, during the course of the 6 years of this vegetation management program.

Page 58: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Before and after photos in coastal zone, Fall 2005 to Spring 2010

Figure 22 contrasts one side of the channel after thinning versus the other side before thinning in September 2005, and Figure 23 shows the same reach the following summer, 2006. In 2007, both sides of the channel were thinned, as shown in Figures 24 and 25. Figures 26-29 show conditions in 2008 and 2009. Current conditions in 2010 are shown in Figures 30-31. Note that the thinned and pruned willows continue to provide near closed-canopy shade for creek, while remaining open near base, facilitating water movement during heavy flows. Herbaceous ground vegetation, which is not pruned, provides cover for small wildlife.

Figure 22. Sept 2005: vegetation work completed on right (north) side;

left (south) side still to be done.

Figure 23. June 2006: Regrowth nine months after vegetation work completed on

both sides of the creek, before pruning later that summer.

Page 59: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 24. May 2007: Looking downstream from location near Figures 22 and 23, willows

retain benefits from previous year pruning, and required little work during 2007.

Figure 25. May 2007: Looking upstream from same stream reach as Figure 24, above.

Page 60: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 26. May 2008: Looking downstream in coastal zone above Guiton crossing. Continued benefits of previous years’ vegetation work are visible, with only minimal pruning necessary this year to maintain openness between willow trunks close to the creek during the coming winter to

allow stormflow.

Figure 27. May 2008: Looking upstream in coastal zone above Guiton crossing, showing stream

canopy cover.

Page 61: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 28. May 11, 2009: Looking upstream in coastal zone above Guiton’s Crossing.

Figure 29. May 11, 2009: Looking downstream in coastal zone above

Guiton’s Crossing.

Page 62: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 30. August 28, 2009: Creek corridor in the coastal zone following summer 2009

trimming by the CCCs. At this point in the season, following lower than normal rainfall in the winter, most of the lower few miles of Arroyo Grande Creek had gone dry.

Figure 31. May 19, 2010: Fallen tree in coastal zone above Guiton’s crossing

(looking upstream).

Page 63: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 32. May 19, 2010: Coastal reach above Guiton’s crossing (looking downstream)

Page 64: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Guiton’s Crossing Guiton’s crossing has been an alternate access route for many decades to the Guiton family property on the south side of Arroyo Grande Creek. The South SLO Sanitation Plant is located on the north side of the Creek, slightly downstream of Guiton’s Crossing. The figures below illustrate the vegetation at and near Guiton’s Crossing in 2008 and 2009 (Figures 33-40).

Figure 33. May 13, 2008: Guiton’s Crossing. Water was flowing steadily in Guiton’s

Crossing in May 2008, but during the heat wave in mid-June, this section of creek dried up, as did most of the rest of the flood control channel.

Figure 34. May 9, 2009: Guiton’s Crossing in 2009.

Page 65: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 35. May 9, 2009: Looking upstream from Guiton’s Crossing.

Figure 36. May 9, 2009: Looking downstream from Guiton’s Crossing.

Page 66: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 37. May 9, 2009: View of vegetation along AG Creek from the north levee,

looking upstream (east) toward Guiton’s Crossing.

Figure 38. May 19, 2010: Newly resurfaced north levee at

Guiton’s crossing (looking west).

Page 67: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Figure 39. May 19, 2010: View from Guiton’s crossing, looking upstream.

Figure 40. May 19, 2010: Looking downstream from Guiton’s crossing.

Owner
Typewritten Text
Owner
Typewritten Text
Page 68: Project Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver ... veg mgmt/CDP Proj Desc 2010.pdfProject Description for Coastal Development Permit Waiver Application ... (WMP) for the

Recommended