by CDFW (0.53 cfs maximum diversion rate and 278.5 AFY baseline diversion amount).
CDFW’s calculations were based on the City’s publicly available diversion records submitted to the SWRCB Electronic Water Rights Information Management System:
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 28.1 9.6 17.5 12.7 18.8 13.1 11.8 12.5 13.4 9.9 25.4 1.8 2011 3.5 2.4 8.1 0.1 3.3 4.3 5 3.6 3.3 4.1 3.4 5.8
2012 9.34 7.55 8.73 9.01 15.17 16.46 17.01 13.99 9.76 21.42 17.62 8.12 2013 7.44 10.16 19.22 29.95 34.1 16.48 10.33 15.29 6.52 4.75 14.95 19.82 2014 24.94 27.17 20.56 25.51 28.42 28.99 26.11 14.97 8.84 21.83 33.66 30.35 2015 36.21 18.21 28.31 26.44 26.04 32.76 29.79 25.86 11.07 13.17 45.65 42.43 2016 30.12 40.68 42.28 49.37 36.02 33.67 40.21 36.77 34.02 23.04 25.68 37.12 2017 11.85 0.03 4.69 15.86 18.05 24.99 10.31 2.35 2.4 12.42 44.11 36.85 2018 28.63 36.83 24.92 41.66 37.86 20.79 26.49 25.04 18.44 13.38 25.77 18.65 2019 13.95 0 0 18.16 12 18.39 19.36 13.52 6.56 3.68 19.07 0.62 Baseline
diversion
amount
averages
AFY)
Avg
2015-
2019 24.15 19.15 20.04 30.30 25.99 26. 12 25.23 20.71 14.50 13. 14 32.06 27.13 278. 52 Avg cfs 0.40 0.32 0.33 0.50 0.43 0.43 0.42 0.34 0.24 0.22 0.53 0.45 Max
diversion
rate
averages
cfs)
0.53 Recommendation #1: CDFW recommends the City perform a comparison of diversion rate averages over the last five years, This comparison will provide an understanding of current diversion conditions and flows. This is necessary to understand how the public trust resources that depend on these current conditions will be impacted by the Project. The distinction between the 2014 FEIR baseline diversion rates and five-year diversion rates may have significant implications for sensitive species. The use of the higher 2014 FEIR diversion rates as a baseline, rather than the actual rates that have been diverted, would significantly underestimate the potential substantial adverse impacts to public trust resources.
Comment #2: Biological Resources Dependent on the City’s Current Diversion Rates.
Issue: CDFW is concerned that diverting an additional 774.5 AFY of water, with a diversion rate increase of 1.32 cfs, may result in a depletion of surface flows. This depletion may adversely affect fish migration and reduce critical rearing habitat for sensitive aquatic species and riparian vegetation for sensitive avian species The actual diversion rate averages over the last five years calculated by CDFW is a 0.53 cfs maximum diversion rate and a 278.5 AFY baseline diversion amount (see Comment #1). These current diversion rates are established as the baseflow that currently support the quality and quantity of aquatic resources (e.g., riparian, wetland, and aquatic biological resources) in the River. The River supports nesting and foraging habitat of Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusilus), which are federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)- and California Endangered Species Act (CESA)-listed. Surface flows also support the ESA-listed California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), CDFW species of special concern (SSC) two striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), SSC western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), as well as the rearing and migration of Southern California steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss; SC Steelhead or O. mykiss), an ESA-listed species.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ( USBR) Cachuma Dam and Reservoir water releases contribute to a significant portion of the hydrograph of the River. These aquatic resources and the sensitive species that utilize them depend on key surface flows of the current hydrograph.
Minimum-flow criteria to address SC Steelhead rearing habitat is measured by USBR at various locations upstream of the Revised Project between Alisal Road Bridge and the Highway 154 Bridge. These measurements are also intended to target fish passage flows further downstream of Revised Project to facilitate SC Steelhead migration to and from the lower River, as well as to and from the mainstem and tributaries above Alisal Road. Target-passage flows also consider water levels, pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and dilution of contaminants from surface runoff. The City’s proposal to divert more than the City’s current diversion rate has the potential to adversely impact SC Steelhead migration and SC Steelhead rearing flows in the lower River.
Recommendation #2: CDFW recommends the City consider the baseline 0.53 cfs maximum diversion rate and the 278.5 AFY baseline diversion amount to analyze the significance of the City’s Revised Project impacts to the functions and health of the River and the resources it supports. This information should include a dynamic baseline analysis of flow and volume based on the existing hydrograph for flows in the River.
Comment #3: Appendix A of Appendix C: Plant and Wildlife Species- Potential to Occur and Observation
Issue: SC Steelhead is stated as not occurring in the Revised Project Area due to a lack of suitable habitat in the Appendix A Table of Appendix C: Terrestrial Biological Resources Technical Report. This is incorrect, SC Steelhead does occur in the Project Area and has the potential to be significantly impacted by the proposed new wells (see Comment #2).
Recommendation #3: CDFW recommends the City correct the Appendix A Table and list that SC Steelhead does occur in the Revised Project Area. CDFW also recommends the City consider evaluating potential impacts to aquatic resources since it was excluded from Appendix C of the Addendum.
Comment #4: Focused Biological Surveys
Issue: Appendix C of the Addendum states that a reconnaissance- level field survey was conducted on April 2, 2021. A single survey-day does not provide a complete accounting of public trust resources that may be affected by the Revised Project due to missed detections or seasonal variations in species’ occurrences. It is unclear whether the Project will significantly impact any public trust resources immediately downstream of the Project site or cause loss of riparian habitat in these areas. Several breeding populations of southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo have been identified and are known to occur 1.3 miles downstream of the Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
proposed well sites. Migration flows and rearing flows in the River are critical to promote access to spawning habitat and maintain physical or biological features of designated critical habitat for SC Steelhead. There is a lack of quantitative and qualitative data that is needed to establish species impacts and population estimates over time.
Recommendation #4(a): CDFW recommends comprehensive surveys be conducted for public trust resources occurring downstream of the diversion. These focused aquatic- and aviansurveys should be conducted to determine the extent of potential impacts to species. This survey data will also ensure that appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are provided. Focused species-specific surveys should consider seasonal variations and should be conducted by a qualified fisheries biologist and ornithologist at multiple times of the year and times of day when sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable.
Recommendation #4(b): CDFW recommends the City conduct additional water flow reduction evaluations and vegetation impact analysis to investigate whether the Project will impact the quality and/or quantity of southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo habitat. The current extent of riparian vegetation that represent southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell's vireo habitat has depended on the existing hydrograph from the City’s current diversions at a maximum diversion rate of 0.53 cfs and a baseline diversion amount of 278.5 AFY. This riparian vegetation relies on current flows to fulfill key points of the hydrograph necessary for the recruitment of dense willow thickets and understory growth for both bird nesting and breeding.
Comment #5: Actual Impacts within the Additional Reach of Diversion Issue: In Section 3.3.1.1, the Addendum states: “The modeling completed by Stetson is not meant to be predictive, but to be used an analytical tool for statistical and comparative purposes. Therefore, because there are no stream gage monitoring points downstream of Alisal Bridge until the Lompoc Narrows, actual impacts to the local groundwater and surface water flows on O. mykiss habitat within the Additional Reach of Diversion are unknown and should be monitored to confirm modeling predictions.” CDFW is concerned that the City’s Addendum does not adequately address impacts to SC steelhead and its habitat because no monitoring of flow in the Additional Reach of Diversion is identified in the Addendum. Project implementation may result in the reduction of refugia pools, reduced reproductive capacity, population declines, or local extirpation of SC steelhead.
Recommendation #5: CDFW recommends the installation of stream gages and monitoring wells in the Additional Reach of Diversion. With these monitoring points, CDFW recommends adding additional triggers in mitigation measure FIS-5 to avoid impacts to the migrating and rearing habitat of SC steelhead and other sensitive species.
Comment #6: Revised Project and the Proposed Wells Located in SC Steelhead Flow Target Areas
Issue: In Table 2.0-4 of the Addendum, it asserts that the Revised Project and the proposed wells are located away from identified SC Steelhead flow target areas in the current Biological Opinion and State Board Order 2019-0148. This assertion in the Addendum is incorrect. The current Biological Opinion is the 2016 Draft Biological Opinion (2016 Draft BO) – the flow target areas in the 2016 Draft BO include the revised project location. The Revised Project is also in the proposed SC Steelhead target areas in the SWRCB WR 2019-0148 (Order), which includes Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
the flow requirements of 2016 Draft BO. Although Alisal Bridge is the flow monitoring location, the flow target area extends downstream through the area of the proposed new wells. The 2016 Draft BO identifies the reach downstream of Alisal Bridge to be suitable habitat that will benefit from the adult migration, spawning, and incubation water-releases to ensure river continuity from Bradbury Dam to the ocean.
Recommendation #6: CDFW recommends the City clarify the discrepancy that the Revised Project and the proposed wells are within the proposed SC Steelhead target areas identified in the Order and 2016 Draft BO.
Comment #7: Stetson Technical Memoranda
Issue #7.1: The Addendum states that the City has revised the project by reducing the number of extraction wells (from six wells to two wells, and keeping in commission one existing well).
The Addendum also states the Revised Project also reduces their diversion from 1,980 to 1,368 AFY. While the reduction and wells and the reduced diversion amount may likely reduce potential environmental impacts, the City has not fully completed their due diligence in properly characterizing the hydrogeologic setting in the proposed project area.
In Section 3.1.3.4, the Addendum states that “[b]ased on results of modeling summarized in Stetson Technical Memorandum No. 6, pumping from four (4) new wells at Well Site B would not cause adverse effects on river flow conditions at Alisal Bridge. Because the Revised Project identifies only two (2) new wells in Well Site B, pumping less volume per year at a lower maximum instantaneous pumping rate, the effects will be significantly less than those identified in Stetson Technical Memorandum No. 6 and the Certified FEIR.” However, the Addendum does not consider the Stetson Technical Memorandum No. 5 (STM No. 5) and No. 6 (STM No. 6) which illustrate the need for additional hydrogeologic data to properly understand the potential impacts pumping may have to beneficial users, include fish and wildlife resources. In STM No. 5 and STM No. 6, Stetson indicates the need for better characterization of the hydrogeology to properly establish thresholds or triggers of water levels for the City’s proposed pumping.
Recommendation #7.1: CDFW recommendations the City address the data gaps highlighted in STM No. 5 and STM No.6 by providing more information on all wells in the area, including:
Well depths, perforations, drillers logs, and alluvial thickness; Measured pumping rates for Alisal Ranch wells relative to available measured drawdown measurements at the well and/or monitoring wells; Static and pumping water level measurements; and,
Historical pumping rating data or monthly groundwater demand.
Issue #7.2: According to in STM No. 6, Stetson indicates that the existing model does not extend far enough west to cover the proposed Site B for the wells. Stetson used analytical methods as a substitute to evaluate the effects of groundwater levels under the 2014 FEIR’s proposed alternatives. However, to utilize these analytical methods, certain aquifer parameters i.e., hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity) are needed. STM No. 6 states that the hydraulic conductivity values were based on specific capacity values from driller logs. STM No. 6 also indicates “ that these test data may be considered somewhat rough since driller tests are not rigorous aquifer tests and the methods used to convert a well specific capacity to a Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
transmissivity of hydraulic conductivity has a wide range of uncertainty” (Pg. 7). For their aquifer parameters, they determined an average hydraulic conductivity for the Santa Ynez River Alluvium that ranged between 200 ft/day and 600 ft/day based on available data near the project area. However, in STM No. 6, Stetson states “…. a hydraulic conductivity of 300 ft/day is assumed to represent all of the Santa Ynez River alluvium units and an average saturated thickness of river alluvium in the area of 70 feet was also assumed for the impact analysis ” (Pg. 7). Furthermore, STM No. 6 states that “the City of Solvang has not yet determined what percentage of the total Solvang diversions from the Santa Ynez River may be developed downstream of the Solvang Bridge” (Pg. 3-4). STM No. 6 also states, “Solvang cannot make that determination until it begins drilling wells at the proposed downstream site and perform well tests” (Pg. 4). Based on this information, CDFW is concerned the available projected data set many not be truly representative of the aquifer parameters at the proposed project area. An accurate data set is needed to be able to establish appropriate threshold triggers of water levels during pumping to reduce impacts to beneficial users, including fish and wildlife resources.
Recommendation # 7.2: CDFW recommends the City provide complete data regarding well performance and water demand. This would help develop critical for determining an appropriate threshold for well interference and seasonal drawdown.
Comment #8: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2016 Draft Biological Opinion Issue: The City does not utilize the best available scientific information to represent current river management conditions. According to NMFS, the 2016 Draft BO provides the best available scientific information regarding SC Steelhead (see, e.g., Order WR 2019-0148, p. 92). Instead, the City relies upon NMFS’ 2000 Biological Opinion (2000 BO), which is deficient for several reasons. The SWRCB recognizes in Order 2019-0148 that “the 2000 Biological Opinion is not designed to achieve fish below a dam in good condition under section 5937 of the Fish and Game Code” (p. 68). The Order notes that the 2000 BO by itself would be insufficient to ensure adequate protection of SC Steelhead (pp. 67-68), and it requires consideration of applicable requirements of both the 2000 BO and 2016 Draft BO. The Order and the Cachuma Project’s hearing record “ establishes that steelhead remain in poor condition at the population and community levels despite the fact the 2000 BO has been in effect for several years. Moreover, there is no indication that the condition of the fishery will improve unless additional measures are implemented to increase the amount of suitable habitat for spawning and rearing ” (Order WR 2019-0148, pp. 126-127).
While the 2016 Draft BO has not yet been imposed as a binding regulatory requirement, its draft status does not mean the new scientific information presented in the BO is presumed invalid or irrelevant to understanding current environmental circumstances and conditions. To the contrary, the Order acknowledges that the 2016 Draft BO is part of the best available scientific information on current biological conditions in the Santa Ynez River, stating that “…this order requires Reclamation to conduct studies to determine other measures that could be implemented to keep the steelhead fishery in good condition using current scientific information on southern California steelhead recovery such as NMFS’ 2012 Final Southern California Steelhead Recovery Plan, 2013 Biological Assessment with any amendments, and 2016 Draft Biological Opinion…” (p. 95, emphasis added).
More importantly, Term 15 of the Order requires Reclamation to “operate and maintain the Cachuma Project and implement conservation measures including but not limited to those Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
described in Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) of the Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River, June 2000, taking into consideration the 2013 Biological Assessment with any amendments and the 2016 Draft Biological Opinion, and...comply with all of the Reasonable and Prudent Measures 5 and 7 through 13, set forth at page 68, and the Terms and Conditions, set forth at pages 70–78, in the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Biological Opinion: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation operation and maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Lower Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California, September 2000.”
Recommendation #8(a): CDFW recommends the City rely on the scientific studies that are cited in the NMFS 2016 Draft BO instead of the 2000 BO. Without incorporating the scientific studies that formed the basis of the NMFS 2016 Draft BO, the City has no reasonable basis to conclude its Project will not have new or substantially more significant impacts compared to the Project studies in the EIR.
Recommendation # 8(b): CDFW recommends revisions to Mitigation Measure FIS-5. Mitigation Measure FIS-5 does not consider the NMFS 2016 Draft BO, or incorporate any pumping restrictions, or incorporate the monitoring of flows, riffle depths, or the surveys to determine the presence or absence of SC steelhead. Mitigation Measure FIS-5 needs to include coordination with NMFS and CDFW in addition to other agencies involved in the management of the River.
Mitigation Measure FIS-5 also does not have sufficient information on the Operational Pumping Plan to establish that the seasonal restrictions in the plan would mitigate significant SC steelhead impacts. The only seasonal restriction mentioned in the Addendum is the 1.5 cfs Alisal Bridge flow pumping restriction. The reduced maximum diversion rate of 2.84 cfs, in combination with the 1.5 cfs Alisal Bridge flow pumping restriction, is insufficient to mitigate impacts on steelhead downstream of Alisal Bridge. A maximum diversion rate of 2.84 cfs with a flow of 1.5 cfs at Alisal Bridge would result in zero flow downstream of the proposed new wells.
Comment #9: Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act Issue: New circumstances, information, and developments since the 2014 FEIR certification must be considered in the City’s analysis and require additional CEQA documentation.
Substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project will be implemented necessitate the preparation of a Subsequent EIR. CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(2). These include the 2015 finding that western pond turtle may be warranted for Endangered Species Act protection, the 2021 petition for southern California steelhead to be listed under CESA, the NMFS 2016 Draft BO, and the SWRCB Order WR 2019-0148 (in compliance with Fish and Game Code Section 5937 and the Public Trust Doctrine).
On March 30, 2015, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that the petitioned action for western pond turtle may be warranted for Endangered Species Act protection. On June 14, 2021, the California Fish and Game Commission received a petition to list SC Steelhead as an endangered species under the CESA. The potential listings of the western pond turtle noted above, and the SC Steelhead highlight the potential of a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified effect, which may also rise to the level of significance given the potential level of protection that the western pond turtle and SC steelhead may now require. There is also a potential for significant effects that were not identified in the 2014 FEIR, considering the Addendum states that actual impacts are unknown to local groundwater and surface water flows on SC steelhead habitat (see Comment #5).
Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
A Subsequent EIR should be prepared because there is new information of substantial importance in the 2016 NMFS Draft BO (see Comment #8) showing substantially more severe impacts on fishery resources, despite lowered diversion levels. In addition, the scientific studies that are cited in the 2016 NMFS Draft BO indicate the need for new mitigation measures pumping restrictions) and monitoring measures (flow, riffle depth and steelhead presence/absence surveys) to reduce significant impacts in the Revised Project Location.
The Order (adopted five years after certification of the 2014 FEIR) requires substantial flow changes in the River in the same location where the Revised Project would impact SC Steelhead and their habitat. These changed circumstances substantially alter the flow regime and SC Steelhead habitat, leading to new significant impacts on SC Steelhead migration, spawning, and rearing, which necessitate major revisions to the EIR to properly describe, evaluate, classify, and avoid or mitigate these new significant impacts.
The Order also requires River flows at the Alisal Bridge near the Revised Project site to be increased from 1.5 cubic feet per second (“cfs”) to five to forty-eight cfs (increased by 333% to 3,200%) to create and increase SC Steelhead habitat and vastly improve habitat quality during above average and wet years. Therefore, the Order significantly extends, expands, and enhances viable steelhead migration, spawning, and rearing habitat downstream from Alisal Bridge in certain water year types. As a result, there will be substantially more habitat, higher quality habitat, and more steelhead downstream from Alisal Bridge where the Revised Project’s impacts will occur. This flow increase represents a substantial change in the circumstances under which the Revised Project will operate. This will intensify the Revised Project’s impacts on SC Steelhead. This will require the EIR to be substantially revised in the form of a Subsequent EIR to sufficiently analyze the significant new impacts on steelhead migration, spawning, and rearing habitat and steelhead survival.
Significant new information in the Order, which could not have been known in 2014, demonstrates that flows would be increased from 1.5 cfs to five to forty-eight cfs at Alisal Bridge, which – as intended by the Order – would substantially improve habitat conditions downstream from Alisal Bridge during wet and above average years. In light of this important new information, the project will result in significant new impacts to steelhead migration, spawning, and rearing and the steelhead population in wet and above average years. Therefore, the Order constitutes new information of substantial importance demonstrating that the project will result in significant new impacts to steelhead downstream from Alisal Bridge.
A Subsequent EIR should be prepared because there is new information of substantial importance (the scientific information cited in the 2016 Draft BO) showing substantially more severe impacts onfishery resources, despite lowered diversion levels. In addition, this information shows the need for new mitigation measures (pumping restrictions) and monitoring measures (flow, riffle depth and steelhead presence/absence surveys) to reduce these significant impacts. Mitigation Measure FIS-5 does not include the above monitoring measures See Recommendation #7(b)).
The City must consider these circumstances, information, and developments in determining whether an addendum is adequate or whether a supplemental or Subsequent EIR is required. A Subsequent EIR is required if substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken or new information of substantial importance shows that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe that shown in the Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
previous EIR. CEQA Guidelines § 15162(a) (2) and (3). As stated above, two species may soon be listed under FESA and CESA, indicating they are in more peril than when the 2014 EIR was prepared, and there are new scientific studies, done after 2014, and used by NMFS in its 2016 Draft BO, that indicate that the Revised Project will have a substantially greater impact on these and other public trust species than the 2014 FEIR and proposed Addendum concluded.
Recommendation #9(a): CDFW recommends the City consider relevant substantial changes in Project circumstances and certain new information of substantial importance that may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the new scientific studies as cited in the NMFS 2016 Draft BO, and potentially substantial changes in groundwater, well, or aquifer conditions since the 2014 EIR certification.
Recommendation #9(b): CDFW recommends the City complete a Subsequent EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 15162. That section requires a Subsequent EIR if substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Project to assist the City in adequately analyzing and minimizing/mitigating impacts to biological resources.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please contact Mary Ngo, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist), at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Erinn Wilson-Olgin
Environmental Program Manager I
South Coast Region
Attachments: Attachment A- February 4, 2011, CDFW Comment Letter on NOP of a Draft EIR for the Solvang Water System Master Update
ec: CDFW
Erinn Wilson-Olgin – Environmental Program Manager I
[email protected]
Rich Burg – Environmental Program Manager I
[email protected]
Steve Gibson – Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) Steve.Gibson@wildlife. ca.gov
Ms. Annamarie Porter
City Clerk, City of Solvang
January 7, 2022
Steve Slack – Environmental Scientist
Steve.Slack@wildlife. ca.gov
Kyle Evans – Environmental Scientist
[email protected]
Bryan Demucha – Engineering Geologist
[email protected]
Mark Gard – Senior Hydraulic Engineer
[email protected]
References
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Order WR 2019-0148. Accessed on December 30, 2021. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/hearings/cachuma/docs/wr o2019_0148_withagreement_final.pdf
Attachment A:
February 4, 2011, CDFW Comment Letter on NOP of a Draft EIR for the Solvang Water System Master Update
State of California – The Natural Resources Agency Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME John McCamman, Director
South Coast Region
4949 Viewridge Avenue
San Diego, CA 92123
858) 467-4201
www.dfg.ca.gov
Conserving California’ s Wildlife Since 1870
February 4, 2011
Mr. Brad Vidro
City of Solvang
1644 Oak Street
Solvang, CA 93463
Fax #: (805) 686-2049
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Solvang Water System Master Plan Update; City of Solvang, Santa Barbara County; SCH #2011011007
Dear Mr. Vidro:
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources.
The proposed project consists of updating the Water System Master Plan (Plan) for the City of Solvang and to install all facilities to implement the update plan. The Water System Plan Update indicates that the City has a reliable water supply that would adequately provide the City’s General Plan full build-out condition. The Plan recommends that the City prioritize the development and use of its water supply sources in the following order of decreasing preference:
Installation of Santa Ynez River wells
Utilize State Water Project (SWP) water
Utilize upland wells located in the City
Purchase water from the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 (ID #1)
To implement the above strategy, the City proposes to install additional wells in the Santa Ynez River and increase pumping of the river underflow within its rights under State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) permit 15787. The City’s current permit to appropriate water from the Santa Ynez River provides for extractions of up to 5 cubic feet per second (cfs) and up to 3600 acre-feet (AF) per year. To achieve the permitted diversion rate of 5 cfs (to meet peak hour demand), the City proposes to install new wells. The City also proposes to construct a new pressure treatment filtration plant to treat existing and future water developed from Santa Ynez River wells.
Based on the Plan Update, Solvang also proposes to construct and repair or replace various new facilities that will be needed over the next 10 years to ensure redundancy in the system for reliability and improve water distribution throughout the City. These facilities include:
Miscellaneous water piping system improvements identified in the 1996 Master Plan Facilities and a plan to monitor the fluctuation of Solvang municipal reservoir levels on maximum summer days to determine if additional local storage is required in the next five years.
Roof replacement for reservoir #1 in 2015
SCADA system upgrade in 2011
Mr. Brad Vidro
February 4, 2011
Water treatment facility filtration equipment
A new operational storage tank to be constructed on a site to be identified and procured A new booster pump station and water storage tank in Zone 2 by 2013 The EIR would also support a request by the City of Solvang to the SWRCB for additional time to study the effects of new river wells that would demonstrate the City’s capability to extract and beneficially use up to 5 cfs or 3600 AF per year. The SWRCB would then consider the new extractions and beneficial uses in the City’s subsequent request for license. The City proposes to install six new river wells and extract up to the permitted rate and the permitted annual limits until such time that the SWRCB and the City have determined that the City has demonstrated the maximum amount it can divert and put to beneficial use.
The Department is California’s trustee agency for fish and wildlife resources, holding these resources in trust for the People of State pursuant to various provisions of the California Fish and Game Code. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a), 1802.) The Department submits these comments in that capacity under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (See generally Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21070; 21080.4.) Given its related permitting authority under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Fish and Game Code section 1600 et seq., the Department also submits these comments likely as a responsible agency for the Project under CEQA. (Id., § 21069.)
The California Wildlife Action Plan, a recent Department guidance document, identified the following stressors affecting wildlife and habitats within the project area: 1) growth and development; 2) water management conflicts and degradation of aquatic ecosystems; 3) invasive species; 4) intensive agriculture; 5) excessive livestock grazing; and 6) recreational pressures. The Department looks forward to working with the Lead Agency to minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources with a focus on these stressors. Please let Department staff know if you would like a copy of the plan to review.
To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project we recommend the following information, where applicable, be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report:
1. A complete, recent assessment of flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats.
a. A thorough recent assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Department's Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/pdfs/Protocols_for_Surveying_and_Eva luating_Impacts.pdf)
b. A complete, recent assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use within the project area should also be addressed. Recent, focused, species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Brad Vidro
February 4, 2011
c. Endangered, rare, and threatened species to address should include all those species which meet the related definition under the CEQA Guidelines. (See Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15380.)
d. The Department's Biogeographic Data Branch in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 322-2493 (www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata) to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitats, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code. Also, any Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) or Environmentally Sensitive Habitats (ESHs) or any areas that are considered sensitive by the local jurisdiction that are located in or adjacent to the project area must be addressed.
2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. This discussion should focus on maximizing avoidance, and minimizing impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should also be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats and populations. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas are of concern to the Department and should be fully evaluated and provided. The analysis should also include a discussion of the potential for impacts resulting from such effects as increased vehicle traffic, outdoor artificial lighting, noise and vibration. c. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on similar plant communities and wildlife habitats.
d. Impacts to migratory wildlife affected by the project should be fully evaluated including proposals to remove/disturb native and ornamental landscaping and other nesting habitat for native birds. Impact evaluation may also include such elements as migratory butterfly roost sites and neo-tropical bird and waterfowl stop-over and staging sites. All migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of birds and their active nests, including raptors and other migratory nongame birds as listed under the MBTA. e. Impacts to all habitats from City or County required Fuel Modification Zones FMZ). Areas slated as mitigation for loss of habitat shall not occur within the FMZ.
f. Proposed project activities (including disturbances to vegetation) should take place outside of the breeding bird season (February 1- September 1) to avoid take (including disturbances which would cause abandonment of active nests Mr. Brad Vidro
February 4, 2011
containing eggs and/or young). If project activities cannot avoid the breeding bird season, nest surveys should be conducted and active nests should be avoided and provided with a minimum buffer as determined by a biological monitor (the Department recommends a minimum 500-foot buffer for all active raptor nests).
3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources including wetlands/riparian habitats, alluvial scrub, coastal sage scrub, should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate. a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed with off-site mitigation locations clearly identified. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts. c. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
4. An Incidental Take Permit from the Department may be required if the Project, Project construction, or any Project-related activity during the life of the Project will result in “take” as defined by the Fish and Game Code of any species protected by CESA. (Fish & G. Code, 86, 2080, 2081, subd. (b), (c).) Early consultation with Department regarding potential permitting obligations under CESA with respect to the Project is encouraged. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 783.2, subd. (b).) it is imperative with these potential permitting obligations that the draft environmental impact report prepared by the County in the present case includes a thorough and robust analysis of the potentially significant impacts to endangered, rare, and threatened species, and their habitat, that may occur as a result of the proposed Project. For any such potentially significant impacts the County should also analyze and describe specific, potentially feasible mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen any such impacts as required by CEQA and, if an ITP is necessary, as required by the relevant permitting criteria prescribed by Fish and Game Code section 2081, subdivisions b) and (c). The failure to include this analysis in the Project environmental impact report could preclude the Department from relying on the County’s analysis to issue an ITP without the Department first conducting its own, separate lead agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the Project. (See, e.g., Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15096, subd. (f); Pub.
Resources Code, § 21166.) For these reasons, the following information is requested:
a. Biological mitigation monitoring and reporting proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA Permit. b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act.
Mr. Brad Vidro
February 4, 2011
5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses ( including concrete channels) and/or the canalization of natural and manmade drainages or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent, ephemeral, or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic habitat values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. The Department recommends a minimum natural buffer of 100 feet from the outside edge of the riparian zone on each side of drainage.
a. The Department also has regulatory authority with regard to activities occurring in streams and/or lakes that could adversely affect any fish or wildlife resource.
For any activity that will divert or obstruct the natural flow, or change the bed, channel, or bank (which may include associated riparian resources) or a river or stream or use material from a streambed, the project applicant (or “entity”) must provide written notification to the Department pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Based on this notification and other information, the Department then determines whether a Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Agreement is required. The Department’s issuance of an LSA is a project subject to CEQA. To facilitate issuance of an Agreement, if necessary, the environmental impact report should fully identify the potential impacts to the lake, stream or riparian resources and provide adequate avoidance, mitigation, monitoring and reporting commitments for issuance of the Agreement. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Again, the failure to include this analysis in the Project environmental impact report could preclude the Department from relying on the County’s analysis to issue an Agreement without the Department first conducting its own, separate lead agency subsequent or supplemental analysis for the Project.
Department staff review of this project included the use of the Department’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). This database allows spatial review of sensitive biological resources that have been reported in the past to the CNDDB staff. The attached map Attachment) illustrates past observation locations of sensitive species in the general area of the proposed project and as such is a useful tool to evaluate potential sensitive biological resources on the project site. These observations do not represent the current status of sensitive biological resources in the area as CNDDB data is provided only by site specific projects and hence the entire map area has not been surveyed. Site specific surveys should be conducted in the manner described above, as needed.
6. A hydrologic analysis that evaluates the impacts to the underflow and surface flows at and adjacent to the well locations as well as down stream should be conducted. The Department recommends using hydrologic data over the last 50 years to conduct this analysis with current existing pumping as the baseline condition. The analysis should be categorized by rain fall years (low, normal, and high), as well as different pumping increments up to the permitted 5cfs or 3600 AF per year. The Department would be available to assist the City with the development of the study.
Mr. Brad Vidro
February 4, 2011
Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. Please contact Sean Carlson, Staff Environmental Scientist, at (909) 596-9120 if you should have any questions and for further coordination on the proposed project.
Sincerely,
Edmund Pert
Regional Manager
South Coast Region
Attachment: CNDDB Results Map
cc: Department of Fish and Game
Natasha Lohmus, Carpinteria, CA
Sean Carlson, LaVerne, CA
Mary Larson, Los Alamitos, CA
Betty Courtney, Newhall, CA
Helen Birss, Santa Barbara, CA
State Clearinghouse
Scott Morgan, Sacramento, CA
See next page for signed signature page